tihravy  of  Che  €heolo0ical  ^eminarjp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

Princeton  University 
Library 


:BS4-S0 

1853 


THE  INSriKATK 


]'.m  y-'  1942^ 


SCRIPTURES: 

A    KEYIEW 
OF    THE    THEORIES 

OP     THE 

REV.  DANIEL  WILSON",     EEV.  DR.  PYE   SMITH, 

AND     THE 

REY.  DR.  DICK, 

AND    OTHER    TREATISES. 

^/— 


BY  ALEXAISTDEK   CARSON,  LL.  D. 


NEW    YORK: 
EDWARD    H .    F  L  E^T  C  H  E  R 

1853. 


CONTENTS. 


PAOB 

Review  of  Wilson,  Smith  and  Dick  on  Inspiration,     .  .         5 

Banotification  of  the  First  Day  of  the  Week,        .  .  25a 

Human  certificates  of  the  excellency  of  the  Scriptures,  .     279 

Difficulties  in  the  Works  of  God  designed  to  manifest  the  un- 

Weliefofmen, 289 

Standard  of  Divine  Truth,        .  .  •  •  .207 

Faith  the  Foundation  of  the  greater  part  of  Human  Knowledge,  303 
The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,     .  .  •  309 

The  testimony  of  the  Lord  makes  wise  the  simple,     .  .317 

The  Great  Paradox,         .  .  .  .  •  325 

The  Scheme  of  Salvation  by  Law  and  by  Grace  irreconcilable 

with  itselt;        .  .  .  .  ♦  .333 

The  Mahometan  Fast  of  Rliamazan,        .  .  .  339 

The  general  Resurrection,       .....    .345 

A  view  of  the  Day  of  Judgment,  as  delineated  in  the  Scrip- 
tures,       ......  361 

Incomprehensibility  of  God,    .  .  ...     415 


INSPIRATION 


THE   SCRIPTURES. 


Of  all  tlie  subjects  that  have  lately  come  under 
discussion  among  Christians,  that  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  doubtless  the  most  impor- 
tant. The  honor  of  Revelation,  the  comfort  and 
edification  of  the  believer,  and  the  truth  of  the 
express  statements  of  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
demand  our  belief  that  the  Bible,  as  originally 
given,  is  dr^ne  in^  every  word. 

That  they  who  deny  the  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  should  be  anxious  to  free  them- 
selves from  the  incumbranc^e  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  records  that  contain  it,  or  which  comes  to  the 
same  thing,  should  modify  the  doctrine  so  as  to 
destroy  it,  while  they  retain  the  word,  is  very 
natural.  Accordingly,  such  writers,  while  they 
nominally  acknowledge  the  inspiration  of  the 
Sacred  Yolume,  have  contrived  to  accompany  the 
admission  with  so  many  exceptions,  to  modify  the 
theory  into  such  a  variety  of  forms,  and  to  load  the 


i)  INSPIRATION    OF 

subject  with  so  many  distinctions,  that,  with  the 
utmost  facility,  they  can  make  every  obnoxious 
passage  bend  to  their  purpose. 

But  that  any  real  lover  of  the  word  of  God,  to 
whom  it  is  sweeter  than  honey  from  the  comb,  and 
more  preciou?  than  fine  gold,  and  all  the  treasures 
of  the  earth,  should  in  any  measure  give  counte- 
nance to  such  profane  and  impious  conduct,  is  most 
deei:)ly  to  be  deplored.  Surely  this  is  a  thing  most 
incongTuous  and  inexcusable.  Little,  however,  as 
this  could  have  been  anticipated,  a  number  of 
\\Titers  have  appeared  professing  the  most  evan- 
gelical sentiments,  yet  with  a  more  than  Socinian 
zeal,  labormg  to  lower  the  inspiration  of  the  book 
of  God.  Whether  they  are  overawed  by  German 
neology,  and  flatter  themselves  that  by  giving  up  a 
part,  they  can  more  successfull}^  retain  the  remain- 
der ;  or  whether  they  labor  under  such  an  obtuse- 
ness  of  intellect  as  to  be  unable  to  penetrate  the 
alleged  difficulties,  and  really  to  be  convinced  that 
the  Scriptures  themselves  require  such  modifica- 
tions of  their  inspiratfon,  I  shall  not  pretend  to 
determine.  Whatever  may  be  the  origin  of  such  a 
sentmient,  it  is  uncalled  for,  by,  any  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  Scriptm-e,  without  foundation  in  the 
word  of  God  itself,  and  dii-ectly  contrary  to  its 
most  express  statements. 

The  theory  of  Mr.  Wilson,  as  detailed  in  the 
Xnith  of  his  Lectm*es  on  the  Evidences  of  Chris- 


THE    SCRIFfURES. 


tianity,  is  in  words  less  shocking  than  that  some 
time  ago  proposed  by  Dr.  P.  Smith,  and  the  still 
mo,ve  shocking  system  of  the  Electric  Review. 
Warned,  no  donbt,  by  the  reception  of  the  extra- 
vagance of  those  writers,  Mr.  ^V.  has  proceeded 
more  cautiously^  and  indeed  has  expressed  hnnself 
so  guardedly,  and  with  so  little  developement  of 
system,  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  exactly 
what  he  means.  From  his  many  full  and  explicit 
recognitions  of  inspiration,  and  from  the  want  of 
detail  or  illustration  in  the  exposition  of  the  theory 
itself,  it  is  difficult  to  convict  him.  We  are  rather 
obliged  to  interpret  his  meaning  as  a  consequence, 
than  we  are  enabled  to  refer  to  it  in  express  state- 
ment. We  must  bring  one  part  to  bear  upon 
another,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  extent  of  his 
doctrine.  His  theory  is,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
partly  human  and  partly  divine :  human  in  manner, 
divine  in  matter.  The  making  of  the  Bible  then 
has  been  a  partnership  business,  in  which  God  and 
man  have  had  their  distinct  provinces.  It  is  both 
human  and  divine,  without  mixture.  Inspiration 
itself  he  distinguishes,  v/ith  many  other  writers  on 
this  subject,  into  four  kinds  or  degrees:  the  inspi- 
ration of  suggestion — of  du-ection — of  elevation — of 
superintendency. 

My  first  observation  on  this  theory  of  distinct 
divine  and  human  parts  in  the  Scriptures,  is,  that 
it  is  not  demanded  by  the  facts  or  phenomena  on 


INSPIRATION    OF 


wliicli  he  gi-onnds  its  necessity.  These  phenomena 
are  summed  up  at  page  499.  "In  order  to  collect 
the  phenomena  on  the  other  side,"  says  the  author, 
"let  us  open  the  'New  Testament  again.*'  Yery 
well,  Mr.  Wilson,  this  is  without  doubt  the  only 
way  to  settle  the  controA-ersy.  Open  then  the 
Kew  Testament,  and  if  it  teaches  your  theory  T 
shall  submit  to  it  with  the  most  profound  respect. 
What  then  have  you  found  in  the  New  Testament 
to  support  your  doctrine?  "We  see,"  says  the 
author,  "  on  the  very  face  of  the  whole,  that  the 
wi-iters  speak  naturally,  use  the  style,  language, 
manner  of  addi-ess  famUiar  to  them."  Demonstra- 
tion, surely  demonstration!  The  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  speak  naturally,  therefore  their 
wi-itings  are  partly  human !  So  then,  in  order  to  have 
had  the  Scriptures  solely  divine,  the  writers  must 
have  spoken  unnaturally,  or  at  least  have  avoided 
their  natural  manner.  Is  it  then  impossible  for 
God  to  speak  through  men  in  their  natural  manner, 
without  making  the  communication  partly  human  ? 
Could  He  not  use  their  style  and  maimer  of  addresss 
as  well  as  their  mouth,  or  their  pen,  while  both 
matter  and  words  were  His  own  ?  Even  in  the  use 
of  the  peculiar  style  of  each  writer  there  is  inspira- 
tion. The  writers  are  not  left,  as  Mr.  Wilson 
supposes,  to  use  their  own  style ;  it  is  a  part  of  the 
divine  wisdon  to  use  this  style,  and  the  writers  are 
as  much  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  this  as 


THE    SCKIPTLKES.  9 

ill  tlieii*  conception  of  the  most  important  doctrine. 
The  Sphit  of  God  uses  the  varied  style  of  the 
writers.  The  ^^Titers  are  not  left  to  themselves  ui 
this.  The  mould,  therefore,  is  as  much  divine  as 
the  matter.  When  God  speaks  to  man  he  puts  his 
thouo-hts  and  words  into  the  form  which  is  natural 
to  those  thi-ough  whom  he  speaks.  This  serves 
many  important  purposes,  of  which  not  the  least 
important  is,  that  it  serves  as  a  touchstone  to  the 
dispositions  of  men  with  regard  to  Kevelation. 
They  w^ho  hate  the  truths  revealed  have,  from  this 
peculiarity  of  mspiration,  a  plausible  pretence  to 
deny  inspiration  altogether.  They  find  in  the 
Scriptures  a  variety  of  stjde,  according  to  the 
number  of  the  wi'iters,  and  therefore  ascribe  all  to 
man.  This  peculiarity  serves  also  a  valuable  pur- 
pose with  respect  to  Christians  themselves.  By 
afibrding  a  pretence  for  speculations  and  theories, 
it  manifests  the  mournful  fact,  that  even  they  w^ho 
have  been  enlightened  in  the  saving  truth,  have, 
in  many  other  things,  a  large  proportion  of  that 
worldly  wisdom  that  savors  not  the  thmgs  that  are 
of  God,  but  the  things  that  are  of  men. 

"There  are,"  contmues  our  author,  "peculiar 
casts  of  talents,  expressions,  modes  of  reasoning  in 
each  author."  True,  very  true.  Yet  this  does  not 
imply  that  there  is  one  word  in  the  whole  volume, 
as  originally  written,  which  is  not  God's.  Is  it  not 
God  who  has   given  to   men   this   peculiarity  of 


10  IXSPIKATION    OF 

talents  and  modes  of  reasoning,  and  why  could  he 
not  employ  these  in  communicating  his  word  ? 

"The  language  is  that  of  the  country  and  age 
where  they  liye."  How  does  this  phenomenon 
bear  upon  the  theory?  "They  employ  all  their 
facuhies ;  they  search,  examine,  weigh,  reason,  as 
holy  and  sincere  men,  in  such  a  cause,  might  be 
supposed  to  do."  Well,  and  in  all  these,  may  they 
not  be  inspired?  -Is  it  not  possible  for  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  convey  his  own  thoughts,  and  his  own 
words,  through  the  searching^  examining^  weighing^ 
reasoning  of  a  man  as  easily  as  if  he  sj)oke  through 
a  statute  ?  The  only  thing  that  surprises  me  in  all 
this  is,  that  there  should  be  any  intellect  to  which 
this  peculiarity  of  inspiration  should,  upon  due 
consideration,  present  a  difficulty  on  the  suppo- 
sition of  the  complete  yerbal  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptm-es. 

"  They  use  all  their  natural  and  acquired  know- 
ledge." They  use  their  knowledge  both  natural 
and  acquired ;  but  without  doubt  they  do  not  use  all 
their  own  knowledge,  whether  natural  or  acquired. 
Th§  Holy  Spirit  used  as  much  of  their  knowledge, 
both  natural  and  acquired,  as  was  to  his  j)urpose. 
The  natural  and  acquired  knowledge  of  the  writers 
of  the  Scriptures,  so  for  as  it  is  communicated  in 
the  divine  word,  is  stamped  with  the  same  seal  that 
impresses  the  discoveries  of  the  character  of  God. 
I  accent  them  as   being   as   truly  divine  as   the 


THE   SORirXUKES.  11 

Grospel  itself.  ''  Their  memoiy  furnishes  them  with 
facts,  or  the  documents  and  authentic  records  of 
the  time  are  consulted  by  them  for  information." 
Yer J  true ;  but  they  do  not  relate  every  fact  that 
they  retained  in  their  memory,  or  that  they  knew 
from  documents.  I^or  were  they  left  to  their  own 
discretion  as  to  the  facts  to  be  related.  The  Holy 
Spirit  gave  them  their  selection  of  facts  and  the 
words  to  record  them.  They  were  as  truly  inspired 
in  relating  what  they  saw  or  in  copying  a  genealo- 
gical table,  if  ever  they  coj^ied  one,  as  in  revealing 
the  way  of  salvation. 

"  They  plead  with  those  to  whom  they  are  sent, 
they  address  the  heart,  they  exj)Ostulate,  they 
warn,  they  invite."  Is  there  any  thing  in  all  this 
inconsistent  with  the  complete  verbal  insj)iration  of 
the  Scriptures?  Does  this  imply  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  partly  human  ?  What  is  there  to  prevent 
the  belief  that  these  pleadings^  these  addresses  to 
the  hearty  these  ex^ostidation^^  these  warnings^ 
these  invitations^  are  all  inspired  fully  in  matter 
and  words  ?  Was  it  impossible  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  convey  his  pleadings,  his  addresses  to  the  heart, 
his  expostulations,  his  warnings,  his  invitations,  by 
those  of  the  insj^ired  writers  ?  What  inconsistency 
is  there  in  supposing  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would 
convey  his  own  exhortations,  in  the  words  of 
an  exhortation  from  an  Apostle,  as  inspired  by 
him  ?     The  only  thing  for  which  I  am  at  a  loss,  is 


12  LN'SPIBATIOX    OF 

to  conceive  how  a  difficulty  can  be  felt  in  this 
matter. 

"The  mind  of  man  is  working  every  where." 
Very  true;  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  through  man, 
not  as  he  did  thi'ough  Balaam's  ass,  or  as  he  might 
do  through  a  statue,  but  as  a  rational  instrument. 
But  in  all  this  working  of  the  mind  of  man,  there 
is  nothing  that  is  not  truly  God's. 

"In  the  historical  books  the  Evangelists  follow 
their  own  trains  of  recollection ;  they  relate  inci- 
dents as  they  observe  them,  or  were  reported  to 
them."  In  whatever  way  they  were  put  in  pos- 
session of  the  matter  related,  they  relate  every 
thing  as  given  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  In  the 
devotional  and  epistolary  books,  again  natural 
talent,  appropriate  feelings  and  judgment,  the 
peculiarities  of  the  individual  are  manifest."  "Who 
ever  doubted  this  ?  Such  a  peculiarity  by  no  means 
implies  that  such  compositions  are  partly  human. 
It  is  quite  consistent  with  the  fact  that  both  matter 
and  words  are  from  God. 

"  Once  more,"  says  our  author,  "  St.  Luke  pre- 
serves his  characteristic  manner  in  the  Gospel  and 
the  Acts ;  St.  Paul  is  always  the  same ;  St.  John 
may  be  known  in  his  several  productions.  Lastly, 
the  prophetical  parts  are  more  elevated,  and  yet 
breathe  the  spirit  and  retain  the  particulai-  phi-ase- 
ology  of  the  writers.  These  are  the  phenomena  on 
the  other  side ;  these  are  the  parts  of  man." 


THE    SCKIPTUKES.  13 

Now,  that  I  might  do  the  writer  and  my  readers 
justice,  I  have  quoted  every  line,  and  even  every 
word  of  the  account  of  the  second  class  of  pheno- 
mena. And  what  is  the  whole  but  one  fact,  one 
phenomenon,  namely,  that  each  of  the  inspired 
writers  exhibits  his  own  characteristic  style  and 
mode  of  reasoning,  and  makes  use  of  knowledge 
which  could  have  been  possessed  ^Wthout  inspiration ! 
This  fact  might,  no  doubt  be  illustrated  from  Luke 
and  Paul  and  John,  and  by  a  thousand  references. 
Still  it  is  but  one  fact,  and  a  fact  by  no  means  even 
apparently  contradictory  to  the  passages  asserting 
fidl  inspu-ation.  Mr.  "Wilson  then  imj)oses  on  his 
careless  reader,  when  he  gives  to  the  illustration 
of  one  phenomenon  the  appearance  of  a  collection 
of  phenomena ;  and  he  grossly  misinterprets  that 
part  which  exhibits  it  as  in  any  way  contradictory 
to  the  entire  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

My  second  observation  is,  that  Mr.  Wilson's  two 
classes  of  phenomena,  must  either  be  reconciled  on 
my  plan,  or  they  are  not  reconcilable  at  all.  If 
there  is  any  thing  in  the  Scriptures  merely  human, 
if  man  has  one  part  in  such  a  sense  that  the  same 
thing  cannot  be  ascribed  to  God,  then  such  a  part 
is  not  inspired,  and  cannot  in  any  sense  be  called 
God's  word.  If  the  Bible  is  a  book  partly  human 
an<i  partly  divine,  it  camiot,  as  a  whole,  be  the  word 
of  God,  nor  be  justly  ascribed  to  Him  as  its  sole 
author.     Accordingly,  if  Mr.  Wilson's  paradoxes 


14  IXSPIRATIOX   OF 

are  not  exiDlained  on  the  view  wliicli  I  have  given, 
they  are  real  contradictions.  "If  everv  thing," 
savs  he,  "  is  divine,  how  is  it  that  we  see  everv  thing 
hnman  ?"  JSTow  how  is  it  that  this  paradox  can  be 
explained  as  a  truth  ?  How  is  it  that  any  thing  in 
the  word  of  God  can  be  said  to  be  hnman  ?  Only 
in  the  sense  of  having  been  written  bv  man.  But 
agreeable  to  the  tneory  that  God  and  man  has  each 
his  distinct  part  in  this  comj^osition,  this  paradox 
is  a  contradiction.  If  man  has  a  part  solely  his 
oyai  in  the  composition  of  the  Bible,  every  thing 
in  the  Bible  is  not  divine ;  if  God  has  His  part  in 
this  composition,  every  thing  cannot  be  hnman. 
The  paradox  must  be  harmonized  not  by  a  thing 
that  ascribes  distinct  parts  to  God,  or  the  writers, 
in  the  composition  of  the  book ;  but  by  supposing 
that  the  Bible  being  the  word  of  God,  may  in  ano- 
ther point  of  view  be  ascribed  to  man  as  the  instru- 
ment. Li  this  sense,  the  epistle  to  the  Bomans  may 
be  called  Paul's  epistle,  while  it  is  the  word  of  God 
in  a  higher  sense.  Such  a  mode  of  speaking  is 
common  on  aU  subjects.  The  king  built  the  palace, 
the  architect  built  the  palace,  and  the  masons  built 
the  palace.  In  this  obvious  light,  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  passages  that  ascribes  the  different  parts 
of  the  book  of  God  to  the  wi'iters  of  them.  But 
this  plain  truth  Mr.  Wilson  has  chosen  to  represent 
as  a  paradox,  and  a  paradox  that  from  his  ex^^la- 
nation  of  it,  must  be  a  real  contradiction.     "  The 


THE   SCRIPTITRES.  15 

books,"  he  savs,  "are  Imman,  and  yet  tliey  are 
divine.  Tliev  are  the  word  of  God,  and  yet  they 
are  the  word  of  man."  I^ow  though  in  the  above 
way,  it  is  possible  to  explain  this  paradox  in  a  harm- 
less sense,  yet  that  explanation  is  harsh,  and  not 
justified  by  the  Scripture  phraseology  in  which  an 
epistle  is  ascribed  to  an  Apostle.  The  latter  n.iode 
of  speaking  is  demanded  by  necessity,  justified  by 
use  on  every  subject,  and  its  meaning  is  obvious  to 
a  child.  But  the  above  paradoxes  are  not  of  this 
description ;  the  books  of  Scriptures  are  never  by 
the  Scriptures  called  human.,  they  are  never  called 
the  ic&rd  of  man.  To  call  anj^  thing  human  as 
contradistinguished  from  divine^  as  in  this  instance, 
is  to  deny  that  it  is  divine ;  to  call  any  thing  the 
word  of  man  as  contradistinguished  from  the  vjord 
of  God^  is  to  deny  that  it  is  the  word  of  God.  Mr. 
Wilson's  phraseology  then  is  not  only  paradoxical, 
but  improper,  and  not  paralleled  by  any  instance 
of  Scripture  phraseology.  However,  as  I  am  fiilly 
convinced  that  the  author  had  a  harmless  meaning, 
I  charge  him  with  nothing  more  than  an  impro- 
priety of  expression.  But  it  is  an  impropriety  that 
should  not  be  considered  as  trifling,  for  a  just  expla- 
nation of  it,  according  to  the  use  of  language,  must 
make  it  fully  as  shocking  in  him  as  it  is  in  appear- 
ance. It  i;5  not  to  be  justified  on  any  principle  to 
call  the  word  of  God  either  a  human  work,  or  the 
^oarh  of  mem. 


It)  in!SPIKatiu:n  of 

But  the  support  of  his  theory,  will  not  suffer  Mr. 
Wilson's  paradoxes  to  shelter  themselves  under  this 
mode  of  explanation.  "  Tlie  books  are  divine,  and 
yet  they  are  human," — "  they  are  the  word  of  God, 
and  yet  the  word  of  man."  jSTow  what  are  the 
grounds  on  which  he  asserts  this?  Kot  merely 
that  the  book  inspired  by  God  was  written  by 
man,  but  that  God  and  man  are  jointly  the  authors 
of  this  book,  each  having  a  distinct  share.  If  so, 
the  books  are  not  all  divine^  nor  all  human ;  but 
partly  divine  and  partly  human.  His  theory  then 
makes  his  paradoxes  a  contradiction. 

That  what  Mr.  Wilson  calls  his  second  class  of 
phenomena,  must  be  considered  in  the  light  in 
which  I  have  represented  them,  is  clear  from  his 
own  account  of  them,  when  he  is  reconciling  them 
with  the  first  class.  When  they  are  introduced  to 
us  for  this  purpose,  they  have  the  most  innocent 
face  imagmable,  without  the  smallest  appearance 
of  an  imprudent  intention  to  derogate  from  the 
honors  of  inspiration.  "Instead  of  addressing  us 
immediately,"  says  the  author,  "God  is  pleased  to 
use  men  as  His  instrmnents."  i:N"ow  what  can  have 
less  appearance  of  contradiction  to  the  inspiration 
of  every  word  of  Scripture  than  this  ?  It  is  so  silly 
to  state  it  in  this  light,  that  it  is  almost  silly  to 
repeat  it.  "  Listead  of  speaking  t«  us  severally  by  an 
independent  revelation,  he  has  consigned  his  will  to 
us  at  once  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."     IS'ow  can  any 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  iT 

one  conceive  a  light  in  which  tliis  even  appears  to 
bear  on  the  point  in  hand  ?  As  to  inspiration,  is  it 
not  the  same  thing  "whether  God  speaks  to  every 
individual  by  a  distinct  revelation,  or  whether  he 
speaks  to  all  in  the  same  revelation  ?  "  Listead  of 
making  known  that  will,"  says  Mr.  Wilson,  "  in  the 
language  of  angels,  or  by  the  skill  of  poets  and 
philosophers,  he  has  been  pleased  to  choose  the 
unlettered  Apostles  and  Evangelists."  Wbat  has 
this  to  do  with  the  subject  of  inspiration?  How 
does  this  fact  aj^pear  to  contradict  the  j)assages  that 
ascribe  the  Scriptures  wholly  to  God  ?  Why  is  this 
introduced  as  a  fact  to  be  reconciled  with  the  first 
class  of  phenomena?  Does  the  fact,  that  in  the 
Scriptures  God  has  not  addressed  us  in  the  language 
of  angels,  appear  to  contradict  the  notion  of  their 
inspiration,  either  as  to  matter  or  manner  ?  K  God 
should  speak  to  men  in  the  language  of  angels, 
would  the  revelation  be  God's,  in  any  sense,  in 
which  it  is  not  His,  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  ? 
Had  he  spoken  by  the  skill  of  poets  and  philoso- 
phers, would  the  manner  have  been  divine  in  any 
sense  in  which  it  is  not  now  divine  ?  Has  he  not 
given  some  parts  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  language 
of  poetry?  Are  these  more  divine  as  to  manner 
than  the  parts  m-itten  by  the  fishermen  ?  "  And," 
says  Mr.  Wilson,  "  instead  of  using  these  as  mere 
organic  instruments  of  his  power,  he  has  thought 
right  to  leave  them  to  the  operations  of  their  own 


IS  i2nspikation  of 

minds,  and  the  dictates  of  tlieii*  own  Imowledge. 
habits  and  feelings,  as  to  the  manner  of  communi- 
cating his  will."  This  is  the  only  thing  that  can  be 
said  to  have  any  reference  to  the  subject  at  all; 
yet,  if  imexceptionably  expressed,  it  would  not  have 
even  the  appearance  of  a  contradiction  to  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  first  class.  God  did  not  leave  the 
writers  of  Scripture  to  the  operations  of  their  own 
mind,  &c. ;  but  He  has  employed  the  operations  of 
their  mind  in  his  work.  Here  then  we  see,  that  in 
reconciling  his  two  classes  of  phenomena,  the  wi*i- 
ter  exhibits  the  second  class  in  the  most  harmless 
point  of  view,  and  it  is  only  in  his  application  of 
the  system  afterwards,  that  he  gives  them  a  diffe- 
rent character.  The  light  then  in  which  the  two 
classes  of  phenomena  can  be  reconciled,  is  not 
a  light  in  which  they  will  bear  the  author's  con- 
clusions. 

My  third  observation  is,  that  the  distinction 
between  matter  and  form^  as  to  their  author,  is  a 
"groimdless  figment,  invented  for  the  seiwice  of  this 
theory.  God  is  as  much  the  author  of  the  manner 
of  the  Scriptures  as  of  the  matter  of  them;  and 
the  sense  in  which  they  may  be  said  to  be  human 
in  their  mamier,  they  may  be  said  to  be  human  in 
their  matter.  In  what  sense  are  they  human  in 
then*  maimer  ?  As  they  have  been  written  by  men, 
after  the  maimer  of  human  writing,  with  the  style 
characteristic  of  those  bv  whom  thev  have  been 


'jjo:  scKirruKES.  19 

written.  Aiid  has  not  tlie  matter  of  these  been  the 
result  of  hnman  thought,  according  to  the  opera- 
tions of  the  mind,  and  with  language  occurring  to 
the  persons  who  were  inspired  to  deliver  them? 
The  Scriptures  are  the  thoughts  and  words  of  the 
^^Titers,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  are  in  their 
style.  It  has  j)leased  God  to  communicate  His  will 
in  this  way ;  so  that  divine  truth  is  ushered  into  the 
world  as  the  result  of  the  operations  of  the  human 
ixdnd.  Even  the  most  glorious  doctrines  of  revela- 
tion, are  not  an  exception  to  this.  If  we  find 
Paul's  style,  we  find  also  Paul's  gospel ;  and  his 
statements  of  truth,  his  arguments,  &c.  &c.  are  as 
much  his  as  his  maimer  of  wi'iting.  In  the  same 
sense  that  we  can  say,  that  the  style  is  Paul's,  we 
can  also  say,  that  the  thoughts  are  Paul's.  They 
are  both  Paul's  in  one  point  of  view ;  in  another, 
they  are  both  God's.  God,  in  conveying  His  truth, 
has  used  the  intellectual  operations,  as  well  as 
the  characterestic  style  of  the  writers  whom  he 
employed. 

If  this  is  the  case  with  respect  even  to  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  how  much  more 
evidently  is  it  so  with  respect  to  those  parts  of 
Scripture  that  relate  to  things  j)roperly  human. 
How  much  of  the  Scriptures  are  emj)loyed  in  rela- 
ting the  history  of  earthly  things?  Is  not  this 
human  matter  as  truly  as  it  is  related  in  hmnan 
style?     But  though,  in  one  sense,  both  in  matter 


20  INSPIRATION    OF 

and  manner,  an  historical  event  is  human ;  in  ano- 
ther, it  is  divine  in  both.  This  writer  is  still  more 
inexcusable  for  such  a  distinction,  since  he  seems 
to  hold  that  manv  things  in  Scripture  needed  only 
divine  sui^erintendencj.  Are  not  such  things  then 
in  every  sense  human,  in  matter  as  well  as  in  man- 
ner ?  Besides,  is  it  not  as  common  to  ascribe  the 
matter  of  the  Scripture  to  the  writers  of  them,  as 
to  ascribe  their  manner?  Do  we  not  speak  of 
Paul's  Epistles  ?  Is  not  the  matter  included  in  this 
appellation?  This  ascribes  every  thing  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  in  one  sense,  to  himself.  We 
speak  more  frequently  of  Paul's  thoughts,  Paul's 
doctrme,  Paul's  reasoning,  Paul's  arguments,  than 
we  do  of  Paul's  style.  Yet  the  simplest  peasant 
never  views  this  phraseology  as  inconsistent  with 
his  firm  conviction  of  the  full  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  whole  sacred  volume.  Such  diflaculties  are 
only  conjured  up  by  the  invention  of  theorists,  to 
make  void  some  part  of  the  word  of  God,  or  to 
enlarge  the  field  of  critical  investigation. 

That  a  human  style  may,  in  another  sense,  be 
divine,  may  be  made  intelligible  to  a  child  by  an 
illustration.  Suppose,  to  give  greater  popularity 
to  a  work  of  genius,  a  writer  should  choose  to 
imitate  the  style  and  mamier  of  Sir  "Walter  Scott  3 
and  that  the  imitation  should  be  so  perfect  that  the 
public  could  not  distinguish.  I^ow,  such  a  style 
would  be,  in  one  sense,  the  style  of  Sir  Walter ; 


THE    SCKIFIUKES.  21 

but  ill  another,  it  would  be  the  style  of  the  author. 
In  like  manner  the  style  of  the  Scriptures  is  the 
characteristic  style  of  the  different  writers,  but  God 
is  the  author  of  it.  The  style  is  as  truly  God's  as 
the  matter ;  for  if  He  has  employed  the  style  of 
different  writers  He  has  likewise  employed  the 
expressions,  thoughts,  reasoning  and  arguments  of 
the  different  writers.  Li  one  sense  the  Scriptures 
are  all  God's,  in  another  they  are  the  writings  of 
Moses  and  the  Prophets,  the  Evangelists  and  the 
Apostles.  The  same  ^a-iter,  on  different  occasions, 
may  employ  different  styles ;  and  God  has  employed 
the  characteristic  style  of  each  of  the  persons  whom 
he  inspired  to  deliver  his  oracles.  If  he  has 
employed  them  as  rational  instruments  with  respect 
to  style,  he  has  likewise  employed  them  as  rational 
instruments  with  respect  to  thoughts,  reasoning, 
arguments  and  words. 

That  the  different  styles  of  the  writers  of  Scrip- 
ture may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  ascribed  to  God,  is 
clear  even  from  the  concession  of  the  author.  He 
admits  that  the  prophetic  part  of  Scripture  needed 
the  inspiration  of  words ;  and  that  in  this,  as  well 
as  in  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures,  we  have  a  charac- 
teristic style.  If  then  we  have  the  style  of  Isaiah, 
even  when  all  the  words  with  their  collocation  and 
syntax  were  chosen  of  God,  is  not  the  style  his 
also  ?  For  what  is  style  abstracted  from  the  words 
that  express  it?      The  distinction,  then,  between 


22  INSPIKATION    OF 

the  matter  and  manner  of  Scriptiu*e,  as  having  a 
different  author  is  visionary  and  gronndless. 

My  fourth  observation  is  that  Mr.  Wilson's 
theory,  both  as  to  the  distinction  between  matter 
and  manner,  and  as  to  the  different  degrees  of  their 
operation  is  utterly  without  foundation  in  the  word 
of  God  itself.  What  can  w^e  know  of  this,  or  of 
any  other  subject  of  revelation,  but  as  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  teach  us  ?  But  where  do  they 
teach  these  distinctions?  What  portion  of  the 
word  of  God  asserts  that  the  matter  and  the 
mamier  of  Scripture  are  to  be  ascribed  to  different 
authors?  AYhere  do  they  teach  that  there  are 
different  kinds  of  inspiration  ?  If  no  such  doctrine 
is  taught  by  the  Scriptures,  then  it  is  one  of  the 
traditions  of  men,  by  which  they,  like  the  Phari- 
sees, have  made  void  the  word  of  God.  It  deserves 
no  respect.  It  is  not  necessary  even  to  refute  it ; 
for  to  show  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach  such  a 
thing,  is  to  refute  it.  The  Scriptures  declare  that 
they  are  the  inspired  word  of  God,  but  in  the  whole 
Sacred  Volume  there  is  not  a  hint  that  they  are 
inspired  in  a  different  sense,  or  in  a  different 
degree.  The  man,  therefore,  who  invents  a  theory 
that  ascribes  to  Scripture  different  kinds  of  inspi- 
ration is  as  inexcusable  as  the  man  who,  in  explain- 
ing the  account  of  the  creation,  asserts  that  the 
earth  was  an  old  planet  repaired,  or  a  splinter  from 
the   sun.     Where  have   our   theorists   found   that 


THE    SCKIPTURES.  23 

inspiration  is  divided  into  suggestion,  direction, 
elevation,  and  superintendency  ?  "Where  the  Pha- 
risees found  that  it  was  a  sin  to  eat  with  unwashed 
hands. 

But  let  us  not  too  hastily  make  assertions.  Let 
us  hear  what  Mr.  Wilson  allec^es :  "Bv  referring 
to  the  language  of  the  Apostles,  as  quoted'  in  our 
last  lecture,  we  shall  find  that  the  divine  inspiration 
was  extended  to  every  part  of  the  canonical  writ- 
ings, m  proportion  as  each  part  stood  related  to  the 
religion,"  505.  The  language  of  the  Apostles;  I 
do  not  wish  a  better  authority.  Tlie  language  of 
the  Apostles  teach  such  a  doctrine !  Where,  Mr. 
Wilson?  You  have  quoted  no  such  passage. 
"  Whatever  weight  the  different  parts  of  the  Sacred 
edifice  were  intended  to  sustain,  a  correspondent 
strength  of  inspiration  was  placed,  as  it  were,  at 
the  foundation."  Fine,  very  fine;  and  is  demon- 
stration itself  more  convincing?  What  can  be 
more  certain  than  that  the  different  parts  of  a 
building  ought  to  have  a  strength  proportional  to 
the  weight  which  they  are  intended  to  bear? 
Unluckily  it  ha23pens  tliat  there  is  a  small  flaw  in 
the  figure.  It  has  not  the  smallest  reference  to  the 
subject  which  it  is  brought  to  illustrate.  Tlie 
difierent  truths  of  revelation  have  a  different  degree* 
of  importance,  which  might  be  well  illustrated  by 
this  truly  beautiful  figure.  But  it  requires  as  much 
inspiration  to  tell  what  o'clock  it  is  by  inspiration 


24  i>s'sruiATiuN  Of 

as  to  reveal  the  Gospel  itself.  II*  all  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration,  the  reference  to  Paul's  cloak 
reqnu-es  as  much  inspiration  as  those  passages  that 
declare  the  way  of  salvation.  The  question  is  not, 
whether  many  things  in  Scripture  might  have  been 
Imo^vn  without  inspiration,  as  there  are  unques- 
tionably others  that  could  not  at  all  have  been 
otherwise  known  ;  but  the  question  is  whether  the^ 
most  trivial  thing  said  to  be  inspired  can  be  inspired 
in  any  other  sense  than  things  of  utmost  moment. 
As  long  as  it  stands  recorded,  "AU  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  so  long  the  honor  of 
revelation  is  as  much  concerned  in  the  inspiration 
of  an  incidental  allusion,  as  in  that  of  the  most 
fundamental  truth. 

In  the  following  extract  the  author  gives  us  a 
specification  of  difPerent  thmgs  that  require  a 
diflerent  extent  of  inspiration,  but  which  have  no 
reference  to  the  subject  at  all.  "  Sometimes," 
says  he,  "  we  read  of  divine  messages  by  visions, 
dreams,  angelic  voices ;  at  other  times  the  Almighty 
appears  to  have  revealed  truth  immediately  to  the 
minds  of  the  Apostles."  iSTow,  had  the  author 
proposed  to  point  out  the  different  ways  in  which 
revelation  was  given,  this  vrould  have  been  to  his 
j3urpose;  but  it  has  no  relation  to  the  extent  of 
inspii-ation.  Whether  a  thing  were  revealed  by 
a  vision,  dream  or  angelic  voice ;  or  without 
any  intervention  the  degree  of  inspiration  is  the 


TiiE   SCIiirTUREri.  25 

Banie.  "  Soinetiines,"  lie  continues,  ''  the  sacred 
writers  were  vaapt  in  ihe  overpowering  commu- 
nications  of  the  Spirit.  At  other  times,  and  as  the 
matter  varied,  their  memory  was  fortified  to  recal 
the  Saviour's  life,  doctrines,  miracles,  parables, 
discourses."  Had  Paul  been  permitted  to  relate 
wdiat  he  saw  in  the  third  heavens,  the  extent  of  the 
inspiration  of  his  account  of  tliG  matter  would  not 
have  been  greater  than  when  he  relates  his  own 
history.  If  his  account  of  the  latter  be  a  part  of 
the  Scriptures,  it  is  given  by  the  inspiration  of 
God;  and  therefore  is  God's  both  in  matter  and 
vrords.  AYho  told  Mr,  Wilson  that  hi  the  account 
of  the  Saviour's  life,  doctrines,  miracles,  parables, 
discourses,  the  memory  of  the  Apostles  was  merely 
fortified?  Has  he  c:ot  anv  new  messai2:e  from 
heaven  ?  Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  this  was  all  that 
vvas  necessary;  this  would  be  arrogance  in  an 
angel,  and  would  deliver  liim  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness to  be  reserved  for  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day.  Yain  men  vdll  be  wise !  ^dio  can  tell  what  is 
necessary  on  such  a  subject  but  God  only?  Who 
dare  make  distinctions  where  God  has  made  none  ? 
God  has  said,  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,"  without  any  hint  of  difi^erent  degrees 
of  inspiration.  "Who  tlien  dare  say  that  one  part 
of  Scripture  is  less  inspired  than  another  ?  besides, 
a  man's  memory  might  be  so  fortified  that  he  could 
remember  every   fact  and  circmnstance  with  the 


26  DsSPIKATION   OF 

utmost  exactness,  lie  miglit  be  able  to  relate  every 
thing  that  ever  he  heard,  vath  every  word  in  its 
proper  place ;  and  after  all  be  unfit  for  writing  any 
of  tlie  Gospels.  Were  an  illiterate  man  to  be  put 
in  possession  of  every  fact  in  Gibbons'  History, 
would  he  be  fit  to  T\a'ite  the  decline  and  fall  of  the 
Koman  Empii-e?  Such  a  man  will  have  full  as 
much  need  of  words  as  of  ideas.  Much  more  m 
the  history  of  Christ  must  q^n  inspired  writer  have 
all  the  matter  and  all  the  words.  'None,  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  can  judge  what  is  to  be  expressed  and 
what  is  to  be  omitted,  and  in  what  phraseology  it 
can  be  most  suitably  exhibited.  When  an  inspired 
's^Titer  gives  us  an  account  of  his  own  feelings,  we 
depend  not  on  either  his  knowledge  or  expression. 
Though  he  speaks  concerning  what  is  most  inti- 
mately Imo^TL  to  him,  he  speaks  the  things  of  God 
in  the  vrords  of  God.  "In  a  different  matter," 
continues  Mr.  Wilson  "  an  author  accompanies  St. 
Paul  and  records  what  he  saw  and  heard.  Again, 
an  Apostle  hears  of  dissentions  in  the  churches, 
and  is  moved  by  the  blessed  Spirit  to  ^Tite  to  them, 
to  denounce  judgments,  to  prescribe  a  course  of 
conduct.  At  other  times,  he  enters  upon  a  series 
of  divine  argument,  delivers  in  order  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel,  or  expounds  the  figurative  economy 
of  Moses."  Yery  true,  very  true.  But  in  all  these 
things  there  is  but  one  kmd  of  inspiration.  All 
this  is  called  the  word  of  God,  and  is  said  to  be 


THE    SOJaiPTUKES.  27 

given  by  inspiration ;  and  therefore  in  matter  and 
words  must  be  God's.  Do  the  Scriptures  any  where 
speak  of  these  things  as  being  differently  inspired  ? 
Isot  one  word  of  all  this  is  in  the  least  to  the  purpose. 

The  author  does  not  pretend  to  determine  the 
extent  of  inspiration  in  each  of  these  cases,  but  he 
says,  ''  we  infer  from  the  uniform  language  of  the 
Kew  Testament,  that  in  each  case  such  assistance, 
and  only  such  assistance  was  afforded,  as  the  emer- 
gencies of  it  required."  ISTow,  as  I  set  as  much 
value  upon  a  legitimate  inference  from  the  word  of 
God  as  I  do  an  express  declaration,  I  have  a  great 
curiosity  to  hear  what  is  this  uniform  language  of 
the  JSTew  Testament,  from  which  such  a  limitation 
and  distinction  of  inspiration  are  inferred.  In  no 
copy  of  the  ]^ew  Testament  that  ever  happened  to 
fall  into  my  hands,  is  there  the  slightest  hint  on  the 
subject. 

But  after  declaring  that  it  is  neither  needful  nor 
possible  to  determine  the  extent  of  inspiration  in 
each  case,  the  author  gives  us  a  most  edifying  j)age, 
in  an  attemj^t  to  draw  that  line  which  it  is  neither 
needful  nor  possible  to  draw.  I  have  heard  of  a 
divine  who  in  one  head  of  discourse  proposed  to 
speak  of  the  revealed  glories  of  heaven,  and  in 
another,  the  imrevealed  glories  of  heaven.  Surely 
Mr.  Wilson's  intrepid  attempt  to  do  what  is  neither 
needful  nor  possible,  manifests  equal  theological 
heroism.     "  The  prophetical  pai*ts,  the  doctrines  of 


28  I^'iPIEATIOX    OF 

pure  revelation,  the  historical  tacts  bevond  the 
reach  of  Imman  Imowledge,  all  the  great  outlines 
of  Christianity,  both  as  to  doctrine  and  practice, 
were  probably  of  the  inspiration  of  suggestion,  both 
as  to  .the  matter  and  the  words,  (for  we  think  in 
words.)  Where  the  usual  means  of  information, 
or  the  efforts  of  memory  yrere  enough,  a#  m  most 
of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  the  inspiration  of  direc- 
tion may  be  supposed  to  have  sufficed.  "Where  the 
exposition  of  duty,  or  the  rebuke  of  error,  or  exhor- 
tation to  growth  in  grace,  was  the  subject,  the 
inspiration  of  eleyation  and  strength  may  be  con- 
sidered as  aiforded.  When  matters  more  incidental 
occm',  the  mspiration,  still  lessening  with  the  neces- 
sity, was  probably  that  of  superintendency  only, 
preserving  from  all  improprieties  which  might 
diminish  the  effect  of  the  whole,  and  providing  for 
inferior,  but  not  unimportant  points  of  instruction. 
Even  the  slightest  allusions  to  proverbial  sapngs, 
to  the  works  of  nature,  to  history,  were  possibly  not 
entu-ely  out  of  the  range  of  the  watchful  guardian- 
ship of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Here  is  a  lamentable 
specimen  of  the  f  ^lly  and  arrogance  of  the  wisdom 
of  man  in  the  things  of  God.  This  grave  evan- 
gelical divine  parcels  out  the  Scriptures  according 
as  he  fancies  that  they  are  more  or  less  the  word 
of  God,  and  pronounces  his  opinions  on  subjects 
which  he  himself  confesses  are  nntaup'ht  in  the 
Scriptures.     This  is  the  worst  species  of  novel- 


THE   SORTPTUKES.  29 

writing ;  for  it  substitutes  tlie  baseless  probiibilities 
and  visionary  suppositions  of  man  for  the  dictate^} 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  ^  It  pretends  to  give  us  infor- 
mation on  a  point  of  which  it  is  admitted  we  are 
not  informed  by  the  word  of  God.  What  sort  of 
instruction  then  can  this  be  ?  What  sort  of  a  mind 
is  it  that  can  derive  edification  from  it  ?  Just  that 
sort  of  mind  that  receives  for  doctrines  the  co^n- 
mandments  of  men.  Li  the  things  of  God,  tlie 
Christian  should  Imow  nothing  but  what  God  has 
revealed.  To  sav  that  this  is  a  foolish  and  untauii^lit 
question  would  not  be  enough,  because  it  is  con- 
trary to  what  is  expressly  taught ;  namely,  that  all 
Scrij)ture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  Mr.  Yv^il- 
son  has  here  given  us  an  apocrypha  to  the  ]^ev/ 
Testament;  and  like  the  apocrypha  added  to  the 
Old  Testament,  it  contradicts  the  inspired  records. 
How  could  we  say  that  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God  if  it  is  merely  possible  that  some 
things  in  them  are  not  entirely  out  of  the  range  of 
tlie  watchful  guardianship  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Is 
the  Christian  then  to  be  sent  to  his  Bible  to  decide 
how  iiW  each  of  its  parts  is  inspired  ?  If  he  is  set 
loose  from  the  authority  of  the  divine  declaration 
that  asserts  the  inspiration  of  the  vrhole  equally, 
will  Mr.  Wilson's  possibly  be  an  anchor  to  him 
when  his  passions  or  his  interests  urge  him  ?  If 
Mr.  Wilson,  by  his  own  authority,  decides  that 
inspiration  ^6»55'i'J^7/ extends  so  far,  others,  by  a  like 


30  INSPIEATION   OF 

autliority,  may  decide  that  possibly  it  does  not  go 
so  far.  "^Thougli  I  sliould  displease  all  the  evangeli- 
cal ministers  of  London  and  of  Europe,  I  will 
express  my  ntter  abhorrence  of  sentiments  so  dis-. 
honorable  to  the  word  of  my  Lord,  so  injurious  to 
the  edification  of  Christians,  so  destructive  to  the 
souls  of  men. 

My  fifth  observation  is,  that  this  distinction  ot 
inspiration  is  an  ungodly  attempt  to  explain  away 
the  thing  and  retain  the  word.  In  fact,  not  one  of 
the  divisions  is  inspiration  but  the  fii'st.  Direction 
is  not  inspiration,  elevation  is  not  inspiration,  super- 
intendency  is  not  inspiration.  Do  not  all  the 
evangelical  ministers  of  London  claim  these  three  ? 
Do  they  not  constantly  pray  for  them  ?  Do  they 
not  ask  direction  from  God  in  their  teaching  ?  i\j'e 
they  not  sometimes  elevated  above  the  power  of 
nature  ?  Do  they  not  speak  of  divine  superinten- 
dency  in  their  places  of  worship  ?  Eut  were  I  to 
assert  from  this  that  Mr.  Wilson  pretends  to  be 
inspired,  I  would  represent  him  as  a  fanatic  ;  and 
my  representation  would  be  a  calumny,  not  justified 
by  his  pretensions  to  divine  direction^  elevation  and 
sicjyerintendency.  If  then,  the  Scriptures  are  in 
many  things  the  work  of  man,  merely  directed^  ele- 
'oated  and  sujpcrhitended  by  God,  it  is  a  fidsehood  to 
say  that  they  are  all  inspired.  Since,  then,  the  Scrip- 
tures assert  that  they  are  all  given  by  inspiration, 
he  who  asserts  that  much  of  them  is  only  the  work 


THi:    SCEIPTIJEES.  31 

of  men,  dwected^  elevated  and  snjyerintended  by 
God,  gives  the  lie  to  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  and  calumni- 
ates the  Scriptures.  This  is  a  serious  charge,  and 
I  charge  it  on  Mr.  Wilson,  and  those  ^Titers  who 
have  used  this  wicked  theory  of  inspiration.  By 
this  Jesuitical  artifice,  we  may  both  admit  and  deny 
any  thing.  "We  have  nothing  to  do  but  in  our 
explanation  to  subject  the  word  to  an  analysis,  not 
directed  by  its  use,  but  by  our  o^\tl  fancies,  or  the 
neoessities  of  our  system,  and  the  vv^ork  is  accom- 
plished. 

My  sixth  observation  is,  that  if  this  distinction  of 
inspiration  is  true,  the  greatest  part  of  the  Bible  is 
not  the  word  of  God  at  all.  When  a  pupil  writes 
a  theme  by  the  direction  of  his  teacher,  with  every 
help  usually  afforded,  and  when  it  is  so  corrected 
by  the  latter  that  nothing  remains  but  what  is  pro- 
per in  his  estimation,  is  it  not  still  the  pupil's 
production  ?  Could  it  be  said  to  be  the  composi- 
tion or  the  vrork  of  the  teacher  ?  I^o  more  can  the 
Scriptures  be  called  the  word  of  God  according  to 
this  mischeivous  theory.  A  book  might  all  be  true, 
and  good,  and  important,  yet  not  be  the  book 
of  God.  To  be  God's  book,  it  must  be  His  m  mat- 
ter and  m  words,  in  substance  and  in  form. 

My  seventh  observation  is,  that  the  author  seems 
to  admit  the  dangerous  position  that  some  things 
delivered  by  the  insj^ired  writers  may  not  belong 
to  the  revelation :  and  that  speaking  on  subjects 


32  IXSPIEATION   OF 

not  of  a  religions  nature,  tliey  may  have  erred. 
This  blasj)liemy  lias  been  openlv  avowed  by  some 
^vl•iters,  and  Mr.  AYilson  certainly  avows  it,  as  a  last 
resource,  in  case  of  necessity,  but  does  not  actually 
in  any  instance  avail  himself  of  its  aid.  To  show 
that  I  am  justified  in  ascribing  this  sentiment  to 
hun,  I  will  quote  his  language,  on  which  I  found 
my  charge.  "  How  far  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures extends  to  the  most  casual  and  remote  allusions 
of  an  historical  and  philosophical  kind,  which  affect 
m  no  way  the  doctrines  or  duties  of  religion,  it  is 
not,  perhaps,  difiicult  to  determine."  Does  not  this 
seem  to  betray  a  fear  that  history  and  philosoj^hy 
may  detect  something  false  in  the  Scriptures,  for 
which  the  author  good  naturedly  provides,  by  sup- 
posing that  such  things  do  not  aifect  the  doctrines 
and  duties  of  religion  ?  God  asserts  most  exj^ressly 
that  ''  all  Scriptm'e  is  given  by  inspiration  ;*'  but 
history  and  philosophy  may  find  some  falsehoods  in 
it.  Mr.  Wilson,  in  this  critical  situation,  most 
generously  steps  forward  and  excuses  them,  by 
alleging  that  they  do  not  affect  the  doctrhies  or  the 
duties  of  religion.  Would  Mr.  Wilson  take  it 
kindly  if  any  one  should  attempt  a  like  apology 
for  himself?  Would  a  jury  look  on  it  as  no  invali- 
dation of  evidence  that  the  v^'itness  is  proved  to 
have  uttered  many  falsehoods  oji  his  oath,  thouii'li 
not  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue  ?  Would  they 
not  utterly  discredit  his  whole  testimony,  if  they 


THE    SCFJrTUKES. 


found  a  known  falsehood  in  Lis  evidence,  even  on 
tlie   most   nncomiected   matters   tliat   are   usnaliy 
broiiglit   forward   in  cross-examination?      K   God 
avows  tlie  whole  Scriptures  as  His  word,  a  Mse- 
hood  as  to  any  thing  will  affect  the  revelation.    The 
Bible  must  not  utter  a  philosophical  lie,  nor  an  his- 
torical lie,  more  than  a  religious  lie.     If  it  lies  on 
one  subject,  who  will  believe  it.  on  another  ?     If  it 
lies  as  to  earthly  things,  who  will  believe  it  about 
heavenly  things?      But   Mr.  "^Yiison   asserts   that 
^'  the  claims  of  the  sacred  penmen  to  an  unerring 
guidance  are,  without  exception,  confined  to  the 
revelation  itself"     God's  assertion  of  insph-ation 
extends  to  every  thing  that  can  be  called  Scripture. 
''All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God.'' 
Even  the  sayings  of  wicked  men  and  of  devils  are 
recorded  by  inspiration,  as  truly  as  the  sayings  of 
Christ  himself.     There  is  nothing  in  Scripture  that 
does  not  belong  to  the  revelation.    What  an  infidel 
iuvention  is  this  that  suggests  a  distinction  in  the 
book  of  God,  between  things  that  belong  to  the 
revelation  and  things  that  do  not  belong  to  it !     Il 
even  our  evangelical  divines  will  except  from  inspi- 
ration  some    things    under   the   denomination   of 
historv  and  philosophy,  not  aflecting  the  religion, 
what  may  not  be  expected  irom  the  darmg  pro- 
faneness   of  those  who  hate  the  gospel  and  are 
wiUing  to  carry  the  theory  to  its  utmost  hmits  ? 
If  MrrAVilson  is  allowed  to  charge  an  historical,  or 


3-i  ixsrmATiON  of 

a  philosopliical  falsehood  on  the  penmen  of  Scrip- 
ture, may  not  Dr.  Priestley  be  allowed  to  charge 
inconclusive  reasoning  on  an  epistle  ?  The  Bible, 
then,  it  seems  is  not  all  the  word  of  God :  only  so 
much  of  it  deserves  that  title  as  affects  the  doctrines 
and  the  duties  of  religion.  This  accounts  very  obvi- 
ously for  the  conduct  of  some  evangelical  divines 
with  resjDect  to  the  circulation  of  the  Apocrj^ha 
intermingled  with  the  Scrij)tures.  If  they  have 
found  that  all  the  Scriptures  do  not  themselves 
belong  to  the  revelation  of  God,  it  is  not  surprising 
if  they  add  a  little  more  to  them,  to  make  them 
more  palatable  to  the  world. 

But  observes  Mr.  Wilson,  "the  Bible  was  not 
given  us  to  make  us  poets,  or  orators,  or  historians, 
or  natm*al  j)hilo3ophers."  Yery  true,  very  true, 
but  very  silly.  We  must  overlook  the  bad  poetry 
and  bad  oratory  of  the  Bible,  if  we  find  any  of  this 
description  in  it ;  and  we  have  no  reason  to  expect 
a  complete  history  of  human  affairs,  nor  a  system 
of  natural  philosophy.  But,  verily,  if  the  Scrip- 
tures contamed  one  rule  of  poetry  or  oratory,  that 
rule  must  be  a  legitimate,  one,  or  the  Bible  is  a 
forgery.  And  if  it  tells  one  historical  untruth  it 
must  forfeit  its  pretensions  in  every  thing,  seeing 
its  pretensions  extend  to  every  thing  in  the  book. 
The  inspired  wi'iters  may  have  been  as  ignorant  of 
natural  philosophy,  as  the  most  ignorant  of  British 
peasants,  without  affecting  their  inspiration.     But, 


THE    GCKTPTURTv'i.  35 

verilv,  if  tliey  have  delivered  one  pliilosopMcal 
dogma,  it  must  eitlier  be  true  or  the  Scriptures  as 
a  whole  are  false.  For  my  part,  I  am  convinced 
that  to  look  into  the  Scriptures  for  a  system  of 
philosophy  is  utterly  to  degrade  them ;  but  it  would 
degrade  them  much  more,  it  v\'Ould  utterly  blast 
their  pretensions,  to  allege  that  they  have  attempted 
and  failed.  I  must  have  the  inspired  writers  cleared 
of  the  accusation  of  pledging  themselves  to  a  philo- 
sophical untruth  as  well  as  to  a  religious  untruth. 
If  the  Scriptures  are  not  designed  to  command 
our  faith  on  points  of  philosophy,  they  do  not 
teach  any  thing  on  the  subject.  How  very  dero- 
gatory then,  to  the  honor  of  inspiration,  is  the 
following  conclusion :— "  Many  things  which  such 
persons,"  (namely,  poets,  orators,  historians  and 
natural  philosophers,)  "might  think  inaccurate, 
may  consist  wdth  a  complete  religious  inspiration." 
How  can  this  be  the  case,  Mr.  Wilson,  when  it  is 
said,  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  ?"  Tliis 
pledges  God  equally  for  every  thing  in  the  Bible. 
Mr.  Wilson's  assertion  gives  the  lie  to  God's  decla- 
ration. God  says  "  All  Scypture  is  given  by  mspi- 
ration ;"  Mr.  Wilson  says  it  is  false,— only  so  much 
of  the  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  as  belongs 
to  the  revelation.  This  blasphemous  doctrine  teaches 
Christians  to  go  through  the  Scriptures,  separating 
what  belongs  to  revelation  from  vrhat  does  not 
belono'  to  revelation,  to  distinguish  wliat  is  true 


36  TxspiRATiON  or 

from  ^vliat  may  be  false.  Could  Satan  broacli  a 
■worse  doctrine  in  tlie  scliool  of  Clirist  ?  Impossible. 
It  wonld  not  be  so  miscliievons  if,  in  the  boldness 
of  infidelity,  lie  were  to  assert  tlirongli  his  agents 
that  the  Scriptures  arc  not  at  all  inspired.  This 
would  be  too  shocking.  From  this  all  Chi-istians 
■would  start  back  with  horror.  But  when,  as  an 
angel  of  light,  he  asserts  through  the  pen  of  an 
evangelical  mmister  that  some  falsehoods  in  Scrip- 
ture are  not  only  consistent  with  the  most  complete 
religious  insphation,  but  that  this  is  the  strongest 
ground  on  which  it  is  possible  to  vindicate  inspira- 
tion, he  is  likely  to  inftise  his  pcdson  into  the  soul 
of  many  simple  and  unwary  disciples  of  Christ. 

But  in  the  very  phraseology  of  this  exceptionable 
sentiment  there  is  a  management  which,  to  say  the 
least,  does  not  savor  of  godly  sincerity.  Such 
persons  onigJit  tJdnJc  inaccurate.  Was  the  author 
ashamed  in  plain  language  to  make  the  wicked 
assertion  ?  His  meaning  must  be  that  such  things 
are  really  inaccurate.  Tliis  is  the  only  point  of 
view  in  which  the  assertion  is  to  his  purpose. 
Why  then  does  he  falter  ?  Does  he  thmk  that  this 
soft  way  of  charging  God  with  falsehood  will 
excuse  the  daringness  of  the  crime  ?  Was  it  caution, 
or  was  it  conscience,  that  mduced  him  to  utter  the 
horrible  blasphemy  as  the  sentiment  of  others  ? 

And  what  artifice  appears  in  the  association  of 
falsehood  in  history  and  philosophy,  vritli  critical 


THE   SCEirTFKES.  37 

faults  in  poetry  and  oratory !  Are  errors  in  fact  to 
be  ranged  with  errors  in  rhetoric  ?  Is  it  tlie  same 
tiling  in  morals  to  be  a  liar  and  a  bad  poet  ?  Is 
the  poetry,  to  wbicli  jnst  taste  has  never  made  an 
exception,  to  be  brought  into  question  merely  for 
the  sake  of  softening  delinquencies  as  to  truth  ? 

The  author  next  gives  us  a  quotation  from  Bishop 
Horsely,  that  shows  that  this  truly  great  scholar 
did  not  know  w^pll  what  to  say  on  this  subject.  He 
admits,  yet  is  unwilling  to  make  the  supposition. 
As  usual,  when  a  writer  is  in  a  cloud,  he  has 
parenthesis  upon  parenthesis,  and  says  more  than 
enough  on  things  nothing  to  the  purpose ;  while  he 
still  leaves  the  question  as  he  found  it.  I  shaU  give 
the  extract :  "  It  is  most  certain,^'  says  Horsely, 
"that  a  divine  revelation — in  other  words,  a  dis- 
covery of  some  part  of  God's  own  knowledge  made 
by  God  himself — must  be  perfectly  free  from  ail 
^mixture  of  human  ignorance  and  error,  m  the 
particular  subject  in  which  the  discovery  is  made." 
Well  then,  my  good  bishop,  must  not  this  apply 
to  the  motion  or  rest  of  the  earth,  if  it  is  really 
taught,  as  well  as  to  the  character  of  God  ?  '*  Tlie 
discovery  may,"  he  continues,  "and  unless  the 
powers  of  the  human  mind  v/ere  mfinite,  it  camiot 
but  be  limited  and  partial,  but  as  far  as  it  extends, 
it  must  be  accurate."  All  true,  but  all  away  from 
the  mark.  •  ISlo  man  ever  felt  a  difficulty  on  this 
point.     This  is  not  debated  by  either   infidel   or 


88  itnSpikation  of 

Christian ;  by  eitlier  tlie  friends  of  plenary  inspi- 
ration, or  tlic  abettors  of  partial  inspiration.  "  In 
whatever  relates,  therefore,"  he  continnes,  "to 
religion,  either  in  theory  or  j^ractice,  the  knowledge 
of  the  sacred  writers  was  infallible,  or  their  inspi- 
ration was  a  mere  pretence."  And  mnst  not  their 
inspiration  be  a  mere  pretence,  if  there  is  any 
thing  delivered  by  them  which  is  not  inspired, 
since  they  assert  of  all  Scriptures  that  it  is  given 
by  inspiration?  Where  is  the  distinction  to  be 
fomid  between  religion  and  things  supposed  not  to 
be  religious  ? 

"Though  I  admit,"  continues  the  bishop,  "the 
possibility  of  an  inspired  teacher's  error  of  opinion 
i7i  subjects  which  he  is  not  sent  to  teach."  But  is 
ne  not  sent  to  teach  every  thing  that  he  has  taught  ? 
K  he  gives  us  a  bad  lesson  in  philosophy  it  will 
condemn  him  as  well  as  if  he  had  given  us  bad 
morality.  If  he  was  not  sent  to  teach  us  philosophyf 
let  him  keep  his  philosophy  to  himself.  There 
must  be  none  of  it  in  the  Scriptures.  But  he  in  a 
parenthesis,  gives  us  an  irrefragable  reason  for  this ; 
"  (because  inspiration  is  not  omniscience,  and  some 
things  there  must  be  which  it  will  leave  untaught.)" 
This  might  be  very  much  to  the  purpose,  if  the 
opponent  was  so  very  unreasonable  as  to  insist  that 
the  Bible,  to  be  an  inspired  book,  must  teach. 
philosophy,  yea,  that  a  divine  teacher  must  be 
omniscient,  and  leave  nothing  imtaught.     But  of 


THE   SCEIPTURES.  89 

what  use  is  it,  with  resj^ect  to  the  man  who  cliarges 
false  philosophical  dogmas,  as  taught  by  the  Scrip- 
tures ?  Tliere  is  a  mighty  difference  between  refus- 
ing to  speak  and  speaking  a  falsehood.  It  is, 
however,  ^s^dth  great  reluctance,  that  this  learned 
bishop  goes  so  far.  For  he  adds,  "  yet  I  confess  it 
appears  to  me  no  very  probable  supposition  (and 
it  is,  as  I  conceive,  a  mere  supposition,  not  yet 
confirmed  by  any  one  clear  instance,)  that  an 
inspired  writer  should  be  permitted,  in  his  religious 
discourses,  to  affirm  a  false  proposition  on  any 
snbject,  or  in  a/iy  history  to  misrepresent  a  fact." 
Here  the  bishop  is  almost,  though  not  altogether, 
such  as  he  should  be.  This  indeed  is  a  very 
important  thing.  But  if  the  learned  writer  had 
considered  the  matter  in  the  view  of  the  direct 
assertion  of  the  insj^iration  of  all  Scripture,  there 
can  be  no  doubt-,  that  he  would  have  taken  higher 
ground.  If  it  is  only  a  supposition,  a  supposition 
not  demanded  by  any  one  clear  instance,  why 
should  the  wicked  supposition  be  made  ?  Especially 
since  it  is  true,  as  the  bishop  adds,  "Tlieir  language, 
too,  notwithstanding  the  accommodation  of  it  that 
might  be  expected  for  the  sake  of  the  vulgar,  to 
the  notions  of  the  vulgar,  is,  I  believe,  far  more 
accurate,  more  philosophically  accurate  in  its  allu- 
sions than  is  generally  imagined."  Indeed  the  lan- 
guage referred  to  can  scarcely  be  called  an  accom- 
modation to  the  prejudices  of  the  vulgar,  but  is 


40  INSPIRATION   OF 

rather  a  speaking  in  the  usual  way  of  men,  vvdthont 
excepting  philosophers  themselves.  If  the  smi  and 
the  moon  are  said  to  have  stood  still  in  the  time 
of  Joshna,  there  is  no  philosophical  sentiment 
expressed,  more  than  when  the  philosopher  himself 
now  speaks  of  the  rising  and  the  setting  of  the  sun. 
There  is  not  the  smallest  difficnltj  tlirov%m  on  the 
subject  from  this  quarter.  It  is  only  foolish  divines 
who  wish  to  have  empfoyment  for  their  learning 
and  ingenuity,  that  contrive  difficulties  to  be  resolved 
by  theoretical  explanations.  Mr.  Wilson  himself, 
after  quoting  the  bishop's  words,  seems  to  feel  a 
little  contrition  for  his  previous  language,  and 
makes  a  strong  eftbrt  to  reconcile  his  views  vritli 
those  of  this  Imninary  of  his  church.  "  Perhaps,'' 
says  he,  "  it  is  therefore  better,  and  more  consistent 
with  all  the  Scripture  language  to  say,  that  the 
inspiration  of  superintendence  reached  even  to  the 
least  circumstances  and  most  casual  allusions  of 
the  sacred  writers,  in  the  proportion  which  each 
bare  to  the  revelation  itself"  Tliere  is  a  happy 
obscurity  in  this  qualification  which,  if  it  prevents 
us  fi-om  using  it  to  advantage,  also  serves  to  screen 
it  from  exposure.  But  if  certain  errors  in  Scrip- 
ture are  reconcilable  with  the  doctrine  of  complete 
religious  inspiration,  how  is  it  better  to  say  the  con- 
trary? Ai-e  we  on  this  subject  to  say  and  suppose 
whatever  fits  our  theories  ?  My  way  is  to  endeavor 
to  find  what  the  Scriptm-es  say,  and  to  this  I  make 


THE    SCinriTEES.  41 

every  liuman  dogma  to  bend.  I  mil  not  allov/  plillo- 
sopliy  herself  to  prate  on  tlie  tilings  of  God.  She 
is  august  hi  her  own  territories,  but  let  her  die 
should  she  dare  to  invade  the  territories  of  revela- 
tion. On  this  holy  ground  her  profline  foot  must 
not  tread. 

But  after  our  author  doubtfully  consents  that 
inspiration  may  extend  to  the  least  circumstances, 
which,  in  his  estimation  is  more  than  is  necessary, 
he  gives  two  reasons  for  his  opinion,  vrhich  are 
almost  as  little  satisfactory  to  me  as  unbelief  itself. 
Why  does  Mr.  Wilson  believe  that  inspiration  is 
thus  extensive  ?  Is  it  because  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves say  so,  which  are  the  only  authority  on  the 
subject?  JSTo,  truly,  this  is  not  the  ground  on 
vrhich  he  rests  the  matter.  His  two  reasons  are, 
that  philosophy  has  no  objection  to  this  view,  and 
that  practical  uses  may  be  derived  from  the  slightest 
details,  and  most  apparently  indifferent  circum- 
stances. 'Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  divine 
truth  must  be  perfectly  consistent  with  true  laiow- 
ledge  of  every  kind,  and  must  have  some  use ;  but 
it  is  equally  true,  that  this  is  not  a  proper  criterion 
for  judging  of  the  contents  of  Scripture.  A  thing- 
may  be  consistent  with  all  other  knowledge,  and 
may  have  practical  uses,  yet  not  be  a  part  of  divine 
revelation.  Had  I,  then,  no  other  reason  for  the 
inspiration  of  the  passages  referred  to,  I  v/ould  not 
believe  it.     That  Paul  was  inspired   in  directing 


42  INSPIRATION   OF 

Timotliy  to  bring  his  cloak,  I  believe,  because  this 
is  a  part  of  Scripture,  and  the  Scriptures  inform 
me  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God."  Mr.  Wilson  believes  Paul  to  be  inspired  in 
this  dii-ection,  because  he  fancies  it  is  not  destitute 
of  practical  use.  I  believe  it  to  have  practical  use, 
because  it  is  the  words  of  inspiration.  If  it  is  not 
inspired  because  it  is  a  part  of  Scripture,  it  is  im- 
possible to  know  that  it  is  inspired,  and  it  is  mere 
fanaticism  to  deduce  instruction  from  it.  Even 
then,  when  Mi*.  Wilson  holds  the  truth  on  this  sub- 
ject, he  does  not  hold  it  on  its  proper  evidence,  and, 
therefore,  does  not  truly  hold  it  at  all.  This  to 
some  may  appear  a  trifling  consideration;  but  it 
is  a  thing,  on  every  part  of  divine  truth,  of  primary 
importance.  AYe  must  believe  God  without  a 
voucher.  On  hearing  a  traveller  relate  some  won- 
derful fact,  if  we  should  hesitate  to  believe  him  till 
some  other  gentleman  should  interpose  the  authori- 
ty of  his  experience,  would  the  narrator  be  satisfied 
with  our  credence  ?  "Would  he  not  consider  him- 
self most  grossly  insulted  ?  And  is  it  not  perfectly 
the  same  thing,  when  we  believe  the  inspiration  of 
the  direction  about  the  cloak  and  parchments,  and 
the  prescription  to  Timothy  to  take  a  little  wine  for 
his  stomach's  sake,  not  because  these  are  parts  of 
Scripture,  and  that "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God,"  but  because  some  evangelical  divine 
can  extract  edification  for  us  from  these  portions  of 


TIIE   SCRIPTUEE3.  43 

the  word  of  God  ?  A  passage  may  contain  instruc- 
tion, yet  we  may  be  unable  to  see  it.  Ai^e  we  then 
to  hesitate  about  its  inspiration  till  we  can  find  the 
looked  for  edification  ?  Does  not  this  warrant  the 
denial  of  the  most  important  truths  of  the  Gospel, 
when  individuals  camiot  perceive  their  advantage  ? 
Does  not  this  justify  the  ^eologian  in  explaining 
away  all  the  miracles  of  Christ  ?  To  rest  the  foun- 
dation of  the  inspii'ation  of  particular  passages  of 
Scripture  upon  any  other  foundation  than  that  they 
are  a  part  of  Scrij^ture,  is  in  effect  to  overturn  the 
inspiration  of  the  whole  Bible. 

I  am  glad,  however,  that  Mr.  Wilson  can  perceive 
several  important  instructions  in  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  have  been  perfectly  barren  in  the 
estimation  of  some  other  evanojelical  theologians, 
strutting  in  awkward  dignity  with  the  staff  and 
gown  of  the  philosopher.  Yes,  some  of  these  ora- 
cles of  orthodoxy,  to  whom  the  religious  world  are 
accustomed  to  look  up  as  almost  the  mouth  of 
heaven,  have  not  been  ashamed  to  avow  the  opin- 
ions that  such  passages  as  the  above  are  not  the 
words  of  God.  Such  things  as  these  are  too  unim- 
portant, too  destitute  of  interest,  too  little  of  a 
religious  nature,  to  be  the  dictation  of  inspiration. 
Hence  the  theory  that  makes  a  distinction  in  the 
Scriptures  between  the  things  that  belong  to  religion 
and  the  things  of  another  nature.  Wretched  inge- 
nuity !  if  thou  must  be  employed,  go  to  the  schools 


4i  IX.?PTIlATION    OF 

of  pliiloso])liY,  Tvliere  tlioii  wilt  find  kindred  mad- 
men ;  leave  the  word  of  God  in  an  nnadnlterated 
state  to  tlie  Cliristian.  How  daring,  liovv^  diaboli- 
cally daring,  to  erect  a  standard  to  displace  some 
parts  of  Scriptnre  from  the  word  of  God !  Who 
bnt  God  has  a  riglit  to  saj  what  is  worthy  of  reve- 
lation? 

Mr.  TTilson,  like  many  other  divines,  assigns  to 
philosophy  a  dignity  and  an  anthority  on  this  sub- 
ject which  I  cannot  recognise.  In  lier  own  province 
she  is  an  instructor  most  interesting  and  useful ;  but 
on  the  subject  of  revealed  religion,  her  prerogatives 
are  very  limited.  'No  philosophical  doctrine,  or 
discovery  in  philosophy,  can  be  admitted  as  testi- 
mony with  respect  to  the  claims  of  a  religion 
pretending  to  an  establishment  on  miracles,  but 
that  which  is  either  self-evident,  or  is  legitimately 
deduced  from  self-evident  principles.  Such  a  philo- 
sophy has  a  right  to  speak,  and  must  be  heard,  on 
all  subjects.  But  little,  indeed,  of  that  which  is 
called  philosophy  is  of  this  description.  Romances, 
assuming  the  name  of  philosophy,  have  spoken  as 
mnpires  on  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation, 
and  unwary  Christians,  either  not  knowing  the 
limits  of  philosophical  interference,  or  from  an 
undue  deference  to  tlie  dignity  of  science,  have 
tamely  acquiesced  hi  the  assumed  claims.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  no  mfidmen  have  been  so  extrava- 
gant as  pretended  philosophers.     The  inmates  of 


THE   SCFJrTUKKS.  45 

Bedlam  are  quite  sane  in  comparison  with  the 
metaphysical  lunatics,  who,  in  the  building  of  inge- 
nious systems,  have  trampled  upon  all  the  laws  of 
evidence,  and  all  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
human  mind.  And  if  the  geological  maniacs,  who 
have  indicated  their  paroxysms  in  the  eifusion  of 
systems  of  ^the  formation  of  the  ^  earth,  are  at  all 
to  be  paralleled,  it  is  in  the  ingenious  but  frantic 
labors  of  those  divines,  who  have  emplo^^ed  them- 
selves in  theories  about  the  manner  of  the  formation 
of  the  v%^ord  of  God. 


'  Ah !  foolish  sago, 
lie  could  not  trust  the  word  of  heaven, 
The  light  which  from  the  Bible  blazed — that  lamp 
"Which  God  throw  from  His  palace  down  to  earth, 
To  guide  his  wandering  children  homo — yet  learned 
His  cautious  faith  on  speculations  wild. 
And  visionary  theories  absurd. 
Compared  with  which  the  most  croncous  flight 
That  poet  ever  took  when  warmed  with  wine 
Was  moderate  conjecturing." 

POLLOK. 

The  phases  of  philosophy  have  been  as  changea- 
ble as  those  of  the  moon;  yet,  in  every  age,  the 
j^ulpit  has  generally  conformed  to  the  reigning 
systems  of  science,  and  has  been  made  the  echo  of 
tlie  schools.  Speculation  assumes  the  place  of 
axioms,  and  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  must  bow  to  the 
successors  of  the  Stagirite. 


46  IKSPIBATION   OF 

Eveu  the  real  discoyeries  of  science  are  not 
founded  on  evidence  that  will  warrant  them  to 
dictate  to  the  sense  of  revelation,  even  on  the  points 
in  which  they  relate  to  the  same  subject.  I  am 
convmced,  that  the  glorj  of  God  has  been  much 
displayed  by  the  glasses  of  the  astronomers.  But 
if  Moses  and  the  telescope  were  at  issue,  I  would 
tramj^le  on  the  glasses  of  the  philosophers.  I  have 
more  evidence  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of 
God  than  ever  can  be  produced  for  the  truth  even 
of  the  ]S"ewtonian  system.  Tliis,  I  say,  not  from 
any  opinion  of  mterference,  for  I  am  persuaded 
there  is  none.  The  Scriptures  are  not  pledged  for 
or  against  this  system.  But  the  usual  vray  of 
speaking  on  this  subject,  discovers  too  little  respect 
for  the  word  of  God,  and  too  much  deference  to 
the  authority  of  philosophy.  Mr.  Wilson  does  not 
seem  free  of  this  charge.  "There  is,"  says  he, 
"  nothing  in  them  (the  Scriptures)  inconsistent  with 
the  facts  and  discoveries  of  history  and  philoso- 
phy." Yery  true,  and  so  much  the  better  for  his- 
tory and  philosophy.  But  is  there  any  fact  in 
history  so  well  established  as  the  history  of  Jesus  ? 
Wq  woidd  not  be  justified  in  condemning  the  Scrip- 
tures, though  many  things  were  found  in  history 
contrary  to  their  accounts.  "Who  has  given  to  pro- 
fane history  the  prerogative  of  credence,  as  often 
as  it  might  differ  from  sacred  history  ?  It  is  much 
better  that  there  is  no  such  difference ;  but  it  is  not 


TIIE   SCKIPITIIKS.  47 

right  to  acknowledge,  even  in  theory,  that  in  a  con- 
tested matter,  the  preference  is  to  be  given  to  the 
word  of  man.  If  the  king  and  his  prime  minister 
make  a  contradictory  assertion,  I  will  believe  his 
majesty.  Shall  I  then  give  less  deference  to  my  God  ? 
I  shall  never  consent  that  the  Scriptures  shall  give 
the  way  in  passing,  to  the  arrogant  systems  of  human 
philosophy. 

There  are,  no  doubt,  errors  on  both  sides.  If 
some  are  willing  to  hold  the  Scripture  from  philo- 
sophy as  their  liege  lord,  others  set  too  small  a  value 
on  the  testimony  of  that  light  which  belongs  to  man 
by  his  constitution.  Whatever  is  self-evident,  ought 
to  be  accounted  as  a  revelation  from  God ;  and  con- 
sequently a  revelation  prior  to  that  of  the  Scriptures. 
Any  thing,  therefore,  that  contradicts  any  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  human  nature,  must  be 
rejected,  whatever  its  claims  may  be.  A  dogma  at 
variance  with  any  sel:&evident  truth,  cannot  be  con- 
tained in  the  Bible.  Tlie  light  of  nature  is  a  divine 
revelation,  and  no  succeeding  revelation  can  con- 
tradict it. 

My  eighth  observation  is,  that  little  as  this  theory 
may  profess  to  deduct  from  the  full  inspiration  of 
Scripture;  though  in  some  instances  the  author 
reduces  the  distinction  to  a  mere  shadow ;  yet  if 
there  is  really  any  thing  in  Scripture  which  is 
human  in  such  a  sense,  that  it  is  not  also  divine, 
the  scheme  as  truly  contradicts  these  passages  of 


4S  ixsrir.ATiox  oi-' 

Scripture  wliich  assert  inspiration,  as  the  most  lax 
system  on  tliis  subject.  If  man  had  a  part  to  per- 
form in  such  a  sense,  that  in  it  God  had  no  share, 
which  is  the  only  sense  in  which  the  distinction  is 
to  the  author's  purpose,  so  far  the  Scri];)tiire3  are 
not  the  inspired  word  of  God.  They  are  not  whol- 
ly by  insj^iration,  which  as  ti'uly  contradicts  the 
assertion  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion," as  the  doctrine  that  inspiration  extends  to  a 
few  general  objects  only.  "Why  do  we  believe  that 
the  Scriptures  are  inspired  ?  Because  they  assert 
this.  If  then  we  are  justified  in  making  any  excep- 
tion fi-om  this,  we  are  ecpially  justified  in  making 
any  number  of  exceptions.  Tliis  theory,  then, 
though  it  makes  a  distinction  which  the  author' 
sometimes  represents  to  be  so  fine  that  it  is  difficult 
or  impossible  to  perceive  it,  in  reality  subverts 
inspiration. 

My  ninth  observation  is,  that  this  theory  is  desti- 
tute of  foundation,  even  according  to  the  author's 
own  explanations.  He  teaches,  that  though  the 
writers  of  Scripture  made  use  of  theii'  o^vn  know- 
ledge, their  own  information,  (fcc,  &c.,  yet,  that  in 
the  use  of  those  they  were  directed  or  superin- 
tended by  God,  so  that  the  thing  written  may  in 
his  view  be  said  to  be  inspii-ed.  'Now  admitting 
this,  for  the  sake  of  argTiment,  why  may  not  the 
human  manner  be  equally  directed,  and  superin- 
tended, and  elevated ;  so  that  it  may  also  be  said 


THE    bCiiIPTUr.ES.  49 

to  be  diviiie  ?  Is  the  manner  more  Iiimian  than, 
according  to  the  author,  much  of  the  matter  ?  If 
then  the  human  matter  may  he  called  the  word  of 
God,  because  of  God's  direction  or  superinten- 
dency,  why  may  not  the  human  manner  be  called 
God's  in  a  like  sense?  May  not  the  form  be 
inspired  m  the  sense  of  direction  or  superinten- 
dence, as  "well  as  the  things  which  are  said  to  have 
this  kind  of  inspiration?  If  so,  why  is  the  man- 
ner said  to  be  exclusively  human,  more  than  much 
of  the  matter,  which  according  to  the  author  him- 
self, is  equally  human  ?  The  author  himself  then 
has  taken  away  the  foundation  from  his  own  theory. 
My  tenth  observation  is  that  this  theory  has  not 
the  redeeming  circumstance  in  it,  that  the  most  lax 
system  of  inspiration  possess,  namely,  an  adaptation 
to  answer  objections.  It  does  not  remove  a  single 
difficulty,  that  is  supposed  to  press  on  complete 
verbal  inspiration.  It  cannot  be  of  the  smallest 
service  in  forming  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels.  K 
all  the  matter  of  the  Scriptures  is  God's,  the 
humanity  of  the  mere  mamier  caimot  reconcile  the 
smallest  seeming  contradiction.  Some  theorists 
may  plead  that  their  systems  are  demanded  by  the 
necessities  of  the  case,  but  this  theory  sins  without 
this  temptation.  Its  advantages  are  merely  in  the 
fancy  of  its  author.  But  the  author's  pretensions 
on  this  head  we  shall  afterwards  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  more  fully  examining. 


50  INSPIRATION    OF 

Mv  eleventh  observation  is,  that  though  there  is 
a  distinction  between  the  matter  and  manner  of  a 
book,  yet  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  author 
of  a  book,  and  the  author  of  the  style,  or  manner  of  a 
book.  He  that  is  the  author  of  a  book  must  be  the 
author  of  the  style  of  the  book.  I^ow  God  is  said 
to  be  the  author  of  the  Bible,  not  merely  the  author 
of  the  matter  of  the  Bible.  "All  Scri^Dture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God."  It  is  the  Scriptm*e 
then  that  is  given  by  inspiration,  and  this  word 
contains  the  manner  as  well  as  the  matter;  the 
words  as  well  as  the  thoughts.  A  -wTiting  includes 
thoughts,  words,  style ;  and  as  all  the  holy  writings 
are  exj)ressly  declared  to  be  inspu-ed,  they  must  be 
insj)ired  in  thoughts,  words,  style.  One  man  may 
suggest  the  thoughts  contained  in  any  composition, 
and  another  may  express  them  in  his  own  manner ; 
but  we  never  say  that  one  man  is  the  author  of  a 
wi'iting  or  composition  and  another  the  author  of 
the  style  of  the  composition,  for  the  word  writing 
or  composition  includes  the  style.  Were  any  piece 
of  writing  produced  in  a  civil  com-t,  as  the  produc- 
tion of  a  certain  person,  how  ridiculous  would  be 
an  attempt  to  prove  that  another  was  the  author  of 
the  style  of  it.  It  might,  indeed,  be  written  in  the 
style  of  another,  that  is,  in  the  same  kind  of  style 
which  another  uses,  but  the  author  of  the  writing 
must  be  the  author  of  the  style.  Just  po  with  the 
Scriptm-es ;  they  are  written  by  the  inspiration  of 


THE   SCllIlTUPvES.  51 

God,  but  that  inspiration  lias  conformed  itself  to 
the  variety  of  styles  used  by  the  writers  of  Scrip- 
ture. To  say  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  work  of 
God,  but  their  style  the  work  of  man,  is  the  same 
thing  as  to  contend  that  the  expression  God  made 
man^  admits  the  supposition  that  the  devil  formed 
him.  The  word  Soinptitre  as  expressly  includes 
style  as  the  word  ')nade  includes  formation. 

The  same  thing  is  evident  from  other  designations 
of  the  Scripture.  The  phrase  word  of  God^  implies 
that  the  Scriptures  are  God's,  in  both  matter  and 
expression.  The  word  Xo/oj^''  denotes  not  only  a 
word,  but  a  connection  of  words,  expressing  a 
thought,  or  a  whole  speech,  oration,  or  treatise. 
It  is  very  variously  used,  but  whether  it  is  employed 
to  denote  a  word,  a  sentence,  or  a  speech,  it  always 
includes  style.  Lideed  it  is  distinguished  by 
Demosthenes  from  Py;fxa,  signifying  a  single  word. 
Li  his  oration  for  the  crown,  he  says  of  ^schines, 
dvvsCKsyj^g  Po^fj^aicc  xa.i  Xoxovg,  translated  by  Dr.  Leland, 
his  words  and  -jperiods  are  jprejpared.  If  then  the 
whole  Scriptures  are  called  the  word  of  God^  they 
must  be  His  in  words  as  well  as  in  matter,  in  style 
as  well  as  in  sentiment. 

The  same  thing  appears   from   the  designation, 

oracles  of  God.     Among  the  heathens  the  word 

oracle  denoted  the  response  given  by  the  god,  who 

Yv^as  consulted  through  his  priest.     This  answer  was 

*  See  Appendix. 


52  iNsi'iiLvnoN  OF 

Bupposed  to  come  from  tlie  god,  botli  in  matter  and 
form.  Tlie  priestess  of  Apollo  at  Delphi  was  in  a 
plirenzy  whilst  she  uttered  the  words  inspired  by 
her  god.  In  general,  the  heathen  j^rophets  were 
fitted  for  being  channels  of  communicating  the 
divine  declarations  by  previous  derangement.  It 
was  then  undoubtedly  understood  that  the  inspii'- 
ing  deity  was  the  author  of  the  words  and  style,  as 
well  as  of  the  substance  of  the  communication. 
The  Scriptures  then  are  said  to  be  the  oracles  of 
God^  and  Stephen  says,  that  Moses  received  the 
lively  oracles.  If  so,  he  received  the  whole  that  he 
wrote.  Indeed,  Mr.  Wilson  admits  what  refutes 
himself.  "The  prophetical  parts,"  he  says,  "the 
doctrines  of  pure  revelation,  the  historical  facts 
beyond  the  reach  of  human  knowledge;  aU  the 
great  outlines  of  Christianity,  both  as  to  matter, 
doctrine  and  practice,  were  probably  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  suggestion,  both  as  to  the  matter  and  the 
words,"  507.  If  so,  the  style  in  all  such  cases  is 
God's,  the  manner  as  well  as  the  matter.  For  if 
all  the  words  are  given  by  God,  how  can  the  style 
be  abstracted  from  this  ?  Indeed,  in  prophecy  not 
understood  by  the  visiter,  the  words  and  the  collo- 
cation of  the  words,  needed  insj^iration  as  much  as 
the  matter.  The  Scriptures  then,  soul,  body  and 
spirit,  are  the  word  of  God. 

My  last  observation  is,  that  Mr.  "Wilson's  system 
is  crude  and  indigested,  and  fertile  in  contradic- 


TUE    SCEIPTUEES.  53 

tions  above  any  otlier  theory.  It  does  not  liang 
together,  but  obliges  him  to  harmonise  its  discor- 
dant parts  by  saying  and  unsaying,  in  the  most 
extravagant  mamier.  The  theory  essentially  con- 
sists in  supposing  that  in  the  making  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, God  is  the  author  of  one  part,  and  man  of 
another.  The  matter  being  divine  and  the  form 
human ;  yet  he  frequently  asserts  that  the  whole  is 
divine,  and  the  whole  human.  E'ow  the  ingenuity 
of  Satan  could  not  reconcile  this  on  Mr.  Wilson's 
plan.  A  thing  may  be  both  divine  and  human  in 
different  points  of  view,  but  in  the  same  j)oint  of 
view  this  is  impossible.  ]^ow  to  say  that  the 
Scriptures  are  divine  and  human  in  different  points 
of  view,  is  nothing  to  Mr.  Wilson's  purpose.  In 
this  sense  the  matter  may  be  said  to  be  human  as 
well  as  the  form.  Tlie  thoughts  are  as  truly  Paul's 
thoughts  in  his  Epistles  as  the  language  and  style 
are  Paul's.  Li  a  like  sense  also,  the  manner, 
though  human,  is  likewise  divine.  God  speaks 
through  Paul  in  Paul's  manner.  But  Mr.  Wilson's 
theory  makes  the  matter  solely  God's,  and  the 
manner  or  form  solely  man's.  If  so,  every  thing 
is  not  divine,  every  thing  is  not  human ;  but  the 
Scriptures  are  partly  human  and  partly  divine. 
Mr.  Wilson  then  palpably  contradicts  himself  when 
he  says  that  everything  is  divine,  for  according  to 
him  the  manner  of  Scripture  is  not  divine;  and 
when  he  says    that  every   thing  is   human,   for 


54  INSPIRATION   OF 

according  to  his  distinction,  the  matter  can  in  no 
sense  be  human. 

Of  the  writers  of  Scriptn.re,  he  says,  "They 
plead  with  those  to  whom  they  are  sent,  they 
address  the  heart,  they  expostulate,  they  reason, 
they  invite."  'Now  this  is  a  portion  of  the  pheno- 
mena that  belongs  to  man.  But  his  theory  requires 
that  nothino;  belono:3  to  man  but  the  manner.  Is 
there  no  matter  then  in  the  Scripture  pleadings, 
addresses  to  the  heart,  expostulations,  warnings, 
invitations?  Are  these  all  shadows  without  sub- 
stance ?  Does  not  this  admit  that  there  is  a  sense 
in  which  the  matter  is  man's  as  well  as  the  maimer  ? 
An  apostle  wi'ites  his  own  thoughts  as  well  as  in 
his  own  style;  that  is,  God  speaks  through  the 
thoughts  and  style  of  the  apostle. 

The  facts  of  the  case,  he  says,  imply,  "  simply 
that  God  was  pleased  to  use  man  as  his  instrument," 
502.  Tliis  is  perfectly  correct  but  perfectly  contra- 
dictory to  the  author's  theory.  According  to  it 
God  does  not  make  use  of  the  instrumentality  of 
man,  but  leaves  a  part  of  his  work  to  the  distinct 
agency  of  man,  in  which  man  acts  as  independently 
of  God,  as  in  his  o^vn  part  God  acts  independently 
of  man.  If  in  the  manner  or  form  of  revelation, 
man  is  only  the  rational  instrument  through  whom 
God  act,  then  the  theory  of  Mr.  Wilson  is  destroyed. 
Accordingly,  though  the  author  speaks  thus  in 
repelling   objections,  and   endeavors   to   hide   the 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  65 

Lideousness  of  the  system  tliat  would  rob  God  of 
any  pai-t  of  His  own  word,  yet  he  speaks  another 
hin<xna2:e  when  he  exhibits  his  system.  Instead  of 
using  the  writers  of  Scripture  as  instruments,  God, 
according  to  the  author,  "  thought  it  right  to  leo/oe 
them  to  the  operations  of  their  own  minds,  and  the 
dictates  of  their  own  laiowledge,  habits  and  feelings, 
as  to  the  manner  of  communicating  His  will,"  501. 
In  like  manner  he  quotes  Warburton,  who  asserts 
"  that  the  divine  superintendence  was  with  so  sus- 
pended a  hand  as  permitted  tlrfe  use,  and  left  them 
to  the  guidance  of  their  own  faculties  while  they 
kept  clear  of  error."  Here  there  is  no  instrumen- 
tality. The  nurse  watches  the  child  stepj^ing 
across  the  floor,  and  as  long  as  it  does  not  stumble, 
puts  not  a  hand  to  the  little  adventurer.  In  such 
cases  then,  not  only  the  m.anner  but  the  matter 
also  is  no  more  God's  than  the  child's  walking  is 
the  nurse's  walking.  It  is  then  absurd  and  contra- 
dictory for  Mr.  Wilson  to  assert  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent provinces  to  God  and  man  in  the  compo- 
sitions of  the  Bible,  yet  when  it  suits  his  view  to 
speak  of  mere  instrumentality  on  the  part  of  man. 
In  another  place,  speaking  of  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture, he  says,  "they  are  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  This  is  all  I  ask,  and  less  I  will  not  take. 
But  how  has  the  author  the  hardihood  to  make 
such  an  assertion,  according  to  his  views?  Does 
he  believe  that  all  the  words  of  all  parts  of  Scrip- 


56  INSPIRATION    OF 

tiire  are  tlie  words  of  the  IIolj  Spirit  ?  His  lan- 
guage can  have  no  lower  import.  Yet,  does  he 
not  himself  expressly  distinguish  between  certain 
things  that  needed  suggestion,  and  certain  other 
things  that  needed  less.  Some  things  needed  only 
the  eye  of  the  nurse.  I  ask  Mr.  Wilson  also,  if  all 
the  words  of  Scripture  are  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  how  is  it  that  the  style  or  manner  of  the 
Scriptures  is  not  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

The  author  likewise  speaks  of  "the  wonderful 
union  of  divine  and  human  agency  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures."  Is  human  agency  a  com- 
ponent integral  part  of  inspiration?  This  makes 
man  the  author  of  a  part  in  the  composition  of  the 
Bible  as  distinct  from  God ;  yet  it  absurdly  makes 
that  part  that  belongs  to  man  only  a  part  of  inspi- 
ration. This  is  a  crude  theory,  Mr.  Wilson.  A 
very  slight  cross-examination  makes  the  witness 
refute  himself.  Again,  in  one  place  he  says :  "  The 
books  are  given  by  divine  inspiration,"  499 ;  in 
another  he  says,  "  where  nature  ended  and  inspira- 
tion began,  it  is  not  for  man  to  say,"  506.  In  the 
first,  all  is  asserted  to  be  inspiration ;  in  the  second, 
it  is  taken  for  granted  that  part  is  inspiration  and 
part  the  work  of  man,  though  it  is  impossible  to 
assign  the  boundary.  If  the  Scriptures  contained 
such  contradictions,  it  would  be  impossible  to  defend 
their  inspiration. 

Let  us  now  take  a  srlance  of  the  author's  view  of 


THE    SCRIPTURES.  57 

the  advantages  of  his  theory.  "By  this  conde- 
scension of  God,"  says  he,  "in  Ilis  manner  of 
inspiring  the  Scriptures,  truth  is  made  more  intel- 
ligible to  the  mass  of  mankind  than  if  the  human 
faculties  had  been  altogether  suspended,  and  the 
feelings  of  common  life  extinguished  or  over- 
borne," 514.  Is  it  peculiar  to  our  author's  system 
to  view  the  faculties  of  the  writers  of  Scripture  as 
active  ?  Does  any  system  deny  it  ?  I  can  admit 
this,  and  I  do  admit  it,  as  fully  as  the  author,  v/hile 
I  contend  that  God  speaks  through  the  activity  of 
the  human  faculties.  I  go  farther  than  the  author's 
distinction  can  consistently  allow  him.  I  can  speak 
of  Paul's  thoughts,  reasonings,  arguments,  &c.  as 
well  as  of  Paul's  style.  Why  then  does  Mr.  Wil- 
son make  such  a  claim  for  his  theory,  when  the 
advantage  he  would  appropriate  to  it  is  common  to 
all  ?  But  in  reality,  it  is  an  advantage  that  exists 
merely  in  Mr.  Wilson's  fancy.  The  Scripture  might 
have  been  equally  intelligible,  and  had  it  pleased 
God,  much  more  so,  had  the  Scriptm*es  been  wi'it- 
ten  by  man  through  an  inspiration  that  actually 
suspended  all  the  rational  faculties — ^nay,  though 
they  had  been  uttered  by  a  statue,  or  written  by  a 
machine.  Nothing  can  be  more  unfounded  than 
the  train  of  consequences  which  the  author  draws 
from  the  supposition  of  the  Scrij^tures  being  writ- 
ten by  an  inspiration  which  should  have  suspended 
all  the  operations  of  the  wi'iter's  mind.    This,  he 


58  INSPIEATIOX    OF 

sajs,  "  must  liave  spread  an  iinifonnity  and  same- 
ness over  the  whole  surface  of  the  Scriptui-es." 
^YhJ  so,  Mi\  Wilson?  It  is  equally  easy  to  assert 
and  equally  easy  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  must  in 
the  case.  Could  not  the  same  Almighty  Author 
have  given  the  very  same  mamier,  with  every 
variety  of  style,  though  man  had  been  as  unconscious 
as  a  block  of  marble  when  he  wi'ote  them  ?  "  Must 
have  expimged,"  continues  our  author,  "all  the 
varieties  of  style,  diversities  of  narrative,  and  selec- 
tion of  topics — ^must  have  impressed  one  and  the 
same  phraseology  and  turn  of  expression  upon  all 
the  sacred  books  in  the  same  language,"  519. 
There  is  not  a  must  in  one  of  these  particulars. 
Had  God  declined  the  instrumentality  of  man  alto- 
gether in  the  writing  of  the  Scriptures,  would  He 
not  still  have  written  in  the  language  and  style  of 
man  ?  Such  writers  as  Mi*.  Wilson  seem  strangely 
to  take  it  for  granted,  that  if  God  had  communica- 
ted the  Scriptures  without  man,  He  would  not  have 
used  the  language  of  man.  In  their  odd  supposi- 
tions, they  sometimes  speak  of  the  language  of 
angels,  as  if  that  would  be  a  revelation  to  man.  I 
supjDose  the  Ten  Commandment  are  as  intelligible 
as  any  part  of  the  Scriptures,  yet  they  are  written 
by  the  finger  of  God,  without  any  instrumentality 
of  man.  This  then  puts  it  beyond  speculation 
what  the  Scriptures  would  have  been,  even  had 
there  been   no  human  instrumentality   in  them. 


THE    SCRIPTURES.  59 

This  fact  slioiiid   have  guarded  Mr.  Wilson  from 
indulging  ip.  such  a  train  of  romantic  speculation. 

The  second  advantage  of  inspiration,  as  explained 
"by  this  theory,  is  "the  interpretation  of  Scri23ture 
is  rendered  more  easy,  as  well  as  more  safe."  'Now 
this  is  an  advanta2;e  which  I  cannot  at  all  admit. 
On  the  contrary,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  with- 
out any  human  instrumentality,  God  might  have 
rendered  the  Scriptures  much  more  easily  interpre- 
ted, and  have  freed  them  from  all  those  apparent 
contradictions,  and  all  those  real  difficulties  and 
obscurities  w^hich  it  is  generally  acknowledged  that 
they  contain.  The  Scriptures  have  exactly  that 
deg-ree  of  clearness  which  the  divine  wisdom  saw 
fit,  and  this  lie  could  have  given  them  in  whatever 
way  He  might  have  chosen  to  convey  them.  Let 
us,  however,  take  a  look  at  the  reasons  by  which 
the  author  supports  his  position.  "  It  depends  not," 
he  says,  "  on  the  turn  of  any  one  particular  phrase, 
or  the  force  of  some  few  words,  but  springs  from 
the  general  import  of  language  familiar  to  tis  all." 
And  had  God  given  the  Scriptures  without  human 
instrumentality,  would  it  have  been  otherwise? 
Would  more,  in  that  issue,  have  depended  on  the 
turn  of  one  particular  phrase,  or  the  force  of  some 
few  words  ?  "Would  less  attention  have  been  paid 
to  the  general  import  of  language,  or  would  the 
speech  of  heaven  have  been  employed  ?  Why  does 
the  author  speak  of  language  familiar  to  us  aU? 


CO  CTSriEATION    CF 

As  every  nation  lias  not  the  words  of  inspiration, 
he  mnst  mean  human  language,  as  distinguished 
from,  language  not  human.  There  seems  to  be  a 
strange  confusion  in  the  author's  mind  on  this  sub- 
ject. He  seems  to  think  that  if  the  Scriptures  had 
not  been  written  through  the  instrumentality  of 
man,  they  would  not  have  been  written  in  human 
language.  Does  he  think  that  the  Scriptures  would 
be  a  revelation  at  all,  if  they  were  not  WTitten  in 
human  language  ?  Whether  they  might  have  been 
written  by  the  finger  of  God,  or  by  angels,  they 
must  equally  have  been  written  in  the  language  of 
man.  Has  the  author  forgotten  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, and  the  various  messages  delivered  to  men 
by  angels  ?  What  occasion  had  he  to  go  to  heaven 
for  a  language,  as  an  alternative  of  the  mode  of 
communicating  revelation  ?  What  reason  had  he 
to  think  that  the  language  of  God  without  a  medium, 
or  through  the  medium  of  angels,  would  have  shun- 
ned the  same  mode  of  interpretation  with  the  lan- 
guage of  man  ? 

"  The  Bible,"  he  says,  "  is  to  be  studied,  its  vari- 
ous parts  compared,  its  metaphors  illustrated,  its 
poetical  and  historical  allusions  unfolded,  all  its 
declarations  received,  according  to  the  well-known 
rules  of  human  wi'iting."  And  would  not  the  Bible 
be  studied,  though  God  had  written  it  by  the  insti'u- 
mentality  of  angels,  or  without  instrumentality 
altogether?    Does  the  author  never  study  the  Ten 


THE   SCRirTUREP  61 

Commandments?  Why  miglit  not  the  various 
parts  of  the  Bible  have  been  compared  on  any 
mode  of  inspiration?  Is  there  any  difference  in 
the  illustration  of  a  metaphor,  whether  it  has  been 
pronounced  by  God  immediately,  or  by  man  as 
God's  rational  organ?  Would  it  be  profane  to 
exhibit  the  meaning  and  beauty  of  a  metaphor  as 
coming  from  God  without  a  medium,  yet  lawful  to 
make  free  with  it  coming  through  the  medium  of 
man  ?  Perhaps  this  is  the  true  reason  why  divines 
so  earnestly  labor  to  give  God  as  little  share  in  the 
Scriptures  as  possible,  and  why  they  are  so  very 
bold  in  their  manner  of  interpreting  the  word  of 
God.  They  seem  to  think  that  the  Bible  is  God's 
word,  in  a  like  sense  as  the  speech  delivered  to 
Parliament  from  the  throne,  is  the  king's  speech, 
and  treat  it  with  similar  rudeness  and  freedom. 

Does  Mr.  Wilson  laiow  of  any  view  of  insj)iration 
that  prevents  the  unfolding  of  poetical  and  histori- 
cal allusions  ?  Have  not  such  allusions  equal  need 
of  being  unfolded  on  all  modes  of  inspiration  ?  Must 
not  the  declarations  of  the  Bible  be  received  accord- 
ing to  the  well  known  rules  of  human  wi-iting,  in 
whatever  mode  it  has  been  insj^ired?  Does  the 
author  really  think  that  the  Ten  Commandments, 
and  every  other  communication  immediately  from 
God,  are  not  to  be  received  according  to  the  well 
known  rules  of  human  wi'iting  ?  It  is  a  wild  and 
extravagant  conceit,  that  the  communications  of 


62  INSriKATION    OF 

God  delivered  iininediately  by  Himself  to  man,  can- 
not be  in  the  language  of  man ;  or,  if  in  the  lan- 
guage of  man,  cannot  liave  their  meaning  ascer- 
tained bj  the  known  laws  of  human  language. 
Should  God  speak  to  me  from  the  throne  of  heaven, 
I  would  ascertain  His  meaning  by  the  laws  of 
human  language,  as  well  as  when  he  speaks  to  me 
by  Peter  and  Paul,  Luke  and  John. 

TThile  the  author  provides  work  for  the  critic  by 
his  mode  of  inspiration,  the  unlearned  Christian  is 
kept  in  good  humor  by  putting  him  on  a  level  with 
the  greatest  scholars,  with  respect  to  knowledge  of 
the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity.  "Tlie  most 
unlearned  Christian,"  says  he,  "stands  upon  the 
same  ground,  as  to  all  the  commanding  truths  of 
revelation,  with  the  greatest  scholars ;  whilst  the 
utmost  diligence  of  the  scholar  will  find  employ- 
ment in  the  adaptation  of  his  acquisitions  to  the 
illustration  of  the  more  difficult  parts  of  the  inspired 
volume."  Now  this  is  a  compliment  to  the  want  of 
learning  in  which  I  camiot  coincide.  It  is  mere 
fanaticism.  Indeed  God  often  reveals  himself  to 
babes,  while  he  hides  himself  from  the  wise  and 
prudent ;  and  many  unlearned  men  have  a  much 
deeper  and  more  correct  knowledge  of  divine  truth, 
than  many  learned  Christians.  Still  I  contend,  that 
learning  is  of  equal  importance  with  respect  to  the 
exhibition,  proof,  and  illustration  of  the  command- 
ing truths  of  revelation,  as  it  is  in  that  province 


THE    SCRirTURES.  63 

wliicli  Mr.  Wilson  exclusively  assigns  to  it.  There 
is  no  subject  in  revelation  in  wliicli  it  is  not  profita- 
ble. There  is  no  greater  bar  to  progress  in  tlie 
knowledge  of  God,  tban  tlio  supposition  that 
all  who  believe  in  Jesus  are  equally  acquainted 
with  the  Gospel.  If  all  parts  of  Scripture  deserve 
to  be  studied,  this  does  so  above  all.  And  nothing 
will  so  Avell  repay  study.  What  a  wonderful  difle- 
rence  as  to  degrees  of  loiowledge,  between  tlie  sim- 
pleton saved  by  faith  and  the  Christian  who,  from 
his  long  and  deep  acquaintance  with  the  Gospel, 
views  it  as  a  self-evident  truth,  having  in  itself  its 
own  evidence  as  much  as  the  divine  existence  itself ! 
Learning  can  in  nothing  be  so  well  employed  as 
on  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel.  There  is  indeed 
no  room  for  speculation  or  theory,  improvement  or 
alteration ;  but  all  the  learning  in  the  universe 
might  be  employed  in  exhibiting  the  inexhaustible 
treasures  of  truth. 

The  third  advantage  which  the  author  finds  in 
his  system  of  inspiration  is,  that  "  by  this  plan,  the 
trifling  inaccuracies  which  have  insinuated  them- 
selves ip.to  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  by  the 
carelessness  of  transcribers,  the  various  readings 
which  have  accumulated  during  eighteen  centuries, 
and  the  further  defects  arising  from  translations, 
or  from  our  ignorance  of  a  few  particular  allu- 
sions, are  of  less  moment."  l^ow  I  cannot  divine 
in  what  wav  these  defects  can  be  either  increased 


64  i:n-spieation  of 

or  diminislied  by  any  mode  of  inspiration.  I 
know  indeed  that  the  mode  of  treating  divine 
truth  employed  by  the  Scriptnres,  interspersing 
the  same  doctrine  in  innumerable  places  certainly 
does  lessen  the  evil  of  various  readings.  But 
I  know  equally  well  that  this  does  not  belong  to 
the  subject  of  the  mode  of  inspiration,  and  that 
this  advantage  might  have  been  effected,  had  the 
Scriptures  been  written  every  word  by  the  finger 
of  God.  If  the  author  has  an  eye  to  this,  he  very 
unphilosophically  confounds  things  as  distinct  as 
things  can  be.  But  let  us  hear  himself  in  the  illus- 
tration of  this  advantage.  "  They  do  not  materially 
impair  the  force  of  the  divine  books,  because  those 
books  are  wi-itten  by  men  like  ourselves."  "Would 
the  above  defects  have  more  materially  impaired 
the  force  of  the  divine  books,  had  they  been  wi'it- 
ten  by  angels,  or  by  the  finger  of  God  ?  "Would  a 
various  reading,  or  an  imperfect  translation,  have  a 
worse  effect  upon  the  Ten  Commandments  written 
by  the  finger  of  God,  or  upon  the  Letters  to  the 
Seven  Churches  of  Asia,  delivered  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  than  upon  any  of  the  Letters  of  Paul  ? 
In  whatever  way  the  Scriptm-es  may  be  supposed 
to  be  inspired,  the  loss  to  the  reader  from  the  above 
defects  is  perfectly  the  same.  Can  any  man,  of 
sobriety  of  mind,  suppose  that  if  God  had  written 
every  letter  of  the  Scriptures  without  instrumentali- 
ty, He  was  more  interested  to  preserve  the  sacred 


THE   SCRIPTURES. 


65 


volume  from  the  errors  of  transcribers  tliaii  He  is 
on  the  plan  employed  by  Him?    Yet  om-  antlior 
asserts  it  as  an  axiom,  that  if  the  Scriptm-es  had  been 
given  by  an  inspiration  which  shonld  have  sus- 
pended aU  the  operations  of  the  writer's  mind,  it 
"must  have  required  the  perfectly  pure  preserva- 
tion of  all  the  copies  in  all  ages  from  the  errors  of 
transcribers,— must  have  rendered  various  readings 
and  imperfect  translations  of  fundamental  injm-y." 
These  assertions  seem  to  be  so  entirely  without  even 
plausibility,  that  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  they 
can  have  influence  on  any  intellect.     On  the  con- 
trary, it  appears  to  me  an  axiom,  that  the  same 
various  readings  and  imperfect  translations  will 
equally  injure  the  book,  whatever  be  the  mode  of 
inspiration.    Would  an  imperfect  translation,  or  a 
various  reading,  do  more  injury  to  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments than  to  the  Third  Epistle  of  John  ?    But 
by  what  sort  of  juggling  is  it,  that  the  author  con- 
trives to  preserve"  the  books  considered  as  divine, 
when  they  are  injured  as  human?     If  a  word  is 
lost,  is  no  matter  lost  ?     Does  he  not  say  that  the 
matter  is  aU  divine  ?    Words  then  that  may  be  lost 
certainly  must  contain  no  matter.     The  loss   of 
words  is  only  the  loss  of  manner !     How  fond  our 
author  is  of  mysteries  and  paradoxes  !     The  force 
of  the  divme  books  is  not  impaired  by  any  casualty, 
because  these  divme  books  were  written  by  men  ! 
.  Then,  it  seems,  if  all  the  Scriptures  which  have 


GQ  INSriRATION   OF 

been  written  by  men  had  been  lost,  all  that  is  divine 
in  them  would  still  remain  !  Is  not  this  a  sort  of 
spiritual  legerdemain  ? 

In  the  continuation  of  his  illustration  of  this  ad- 
vantage, the  author  observes,  "  The  truths  are  not 
conveyed  drylv  and  systematically,  but  clothed  wiili 
human  feelings,"  <fec.  Had  God  written  ail  the 
Bible  with  His  own  finger,  must  it  have  been  a  dry 
systematic  work?  Surely  this  has  no  relation  to 
the  subject  of  inspiration.  It  is  a  peculiarity  and 
an  advantage  belonging  to  the  plan  of  revelation, 
but  with  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  inspiration  it 
has  no  more  concern  than  it  has  with  the  genealogy 
of  I\Ielchisedec. 

The  fourth  advantage  which  the  author  ascribes 
to  his  view  of  this  subject  is,  that  the  sacred  books 
on  this  plan  become  capable  of  supplying  proofs 
of  authenticity.  This  is  a  sound  observation.  Had 
the  Scriptares  been  wi'itten,  either  by  God  imme- 
diately, or  through  angels,  we  w^ould  have  wanted 
those  proofs  of  authenticity,  that  result  from  the 
characteristic  style  of  each  of  the  inspired  writers. 
But  the  views  of  those  who  consider  the  various 
styles  as  also  the  work  of  God,  as  well  as  of  man, 
possesses  this  advantage  equally.  When  Su*  Walter 
Scott  writes  in  the  style  of  any  of  his  fictitious 
characters,  it  is  still  the  style  of  Sir  Walter.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  other  internal  evidences,  to 
which  Mr.  Wilson's  fifth  advantage  refers. 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  C7 

His  sixth  advantage  also  is  real,  and  the  illus- 
tration of  it  quite  satisfactory.  It  will  be  of  great 
advantage  to  read  the  Scriptures  with  this  observa- 
tion constantly  in  view,  for  it  is  exemplified  in  innu- 
merable particulars.  The  Scriptures,  he  observes, 
are  thus  more  adapted  to  be  a  moral  probation  of 
the  heart.  It  might  not  be  un2:;rofitable  to  the 
author,  to  consider  whether  his  observations  may 
not  apply  to  his  own  theory.  The  traces  of  the 
characteristic  style  of  the  fishermen  of  Galilee  may 
afi:brd-an  occasion  to  worldly  wisdom  to  invent  a 
theory  founded  on  an  arbitrary  distinction,  instead 
of  submitting,  like  a  little  child,  to  believe  the 
testimony  of  God  on  this  question,  asserting  that 
"  All  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God." 
Surely  there  is  nothing  in  Scripture  which  asserts 
that  the  manner  of  Scripture  is  not  as  truly  divine 
as  the  matter. 

I  am  glad  to  find  that  the  author,  in  the  first  of 
his  practical  reflections,  so  decidedly  condemns 
that  wicked  theory  that  some  have  lately  brought 
forward,  that  daringly  ventures  to  divest  of  inspi- 
ration some  things  in  scripture,  as  too  trifling,  and 
of  too  worldly  a  nature  to  deserve  that  honor. 
Such  arrogance  assuming  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
word  of  Jehovah,  instead  of  seeking  instruction 
from  every  part  of  it,  cannot  be  too  severely  repro- 
bated. "  The  moment  man  dares  to  consider  any 
part  of  Scripture  as  uninspired,"  says  Mr.  Wilson, 


C8  INSPIRATION   OF 

"he  sets  up  iiis  o^ti  prejudices  as  tlie  rule  of 
judgment ;  he  believes  only  what  he  likes ;  and  he 
commonly  ends  in  undervaluing  or  rejecting  some 
of  the  fundamental  truths  of  the  Gospel."  I  would 
have  had  much  greater  pleasure  in  reviewing 
Mr.  Wilson's  work  had  he  written  the  whole  in  a 
strain  worthy  of  this  observation. 

The  author's  second  reflection  is  that  this  theory 
"tends  to  close  the  avenues  to  some  of  the  most 
pernicious  evils  which  have  desolated  the  church." 
He  divides  these  errors  into  two  classes ;  the  first 
takes  too  low  a  view  of  inspiration,  and  the.  second 
too  high  a  view.  The  usurpation  over  conscience, 
the  authority  of  tradition,  infallibility,  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  free  use  of  the  Bible  to  the  laity,  the 
exclusive  inposition  of  a  particular  translation,  and 
the  intermixture  of  Apocryphal  with  Canonical 
writings,  are  all  ascribed  to  the  first.  ISTow  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  abettors  of  these  errors 
have  little  practical  regard  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures;  but  there  can  be  as  little  doubt  that 
they  do  not  arise  from  a  denial  of  plenary  inspira- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  the  Church  of  Rome  will 
admit  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  more  fully 
than  Mr.  Wilson  himself.  It  will  ascribe  them  to 
God,  both  in  matter  and  mamier.  It  admits  the 
Apocraphy,  not  because  it  makes  light  of  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  genuine  books  of  Scripture,  but 
because  it  believes  the  Apocrypha  to  be  inspired. 


THE  scrjrTUiiES.  60 

It  imposes  an  exclusive  translation ;  not  because  it 
believes  tlie  original  to  be  uninspired,  or  inspired 
in  a  low  degree,  but  because  it  believes  tlie  Yulgate 
to  be  an  inspired  translation.  I  wish  Mr.  Wilson 
was  engaged  in  actual  combat  wdth  any  Roman 
Catholic  ^vi-iter ;  he  would  soon  be  convinced  that 
he  was  here  writing  at  random.  There  is  no  more 
reason  to  ascribe  Popish  errors  to  imperfect  views 
of  inspiration,  than  there  is  to  ascribe  all  errors  to 
this  source. 

But  it  is  more  to  my  purpose  to  attend  to  the 
errors  supposed  to  result  from  an  overstrained 
view  of  inspiration.  "  On  the  other  hand,"  says 
Mr.  Wilson,  "  the  class  of  errors,  not  generally  so 
fatal,  but  yet  most  injurious,  which  spring  from  a 
forgetfulness  of  the  human  character,  and  form  of 
the  plan  of  inspiration,  is  to  be  guarded  against." 
l^ow,  reader,  put  your  invention  on  duty,  and  try 
to  find  out  a  number  of  such  errors — errors  whose 
origin  is  the  overlooking  of  the  maimer  of  inspira- 
tion. "If  the  mspiration  of  Scripture,"  says  the 
author,  "be  so  interpreted  as  to  supersede  the 
free  and  natural  flow  of  the  writer's  mind."  Is 
there  any  one  who  holds  this  ?  and  if  there  is,  does 
it  lead  to  the  supposed  consequence  ?  Cannot  God 
convey  His  thoughts  and  His  words  through  the 
natural  flow  of  the  thoughts  and  words  of  him 
thi-ough  whom  He  speaks  ?  "  K  sound  and  reason- 
able means  of  expomiding  the  force  of  terms,"  say& 


70  LN^SPIRATION    OF 

he,  "  the  import  of  meta2:)hors,  the  signification  of 
allusions  to  local  customs  be  discarded/'  Do  any 
of  those  who  have  the  highest  views  of  insj^iration, 
discard  sound  and  reasonable  means  of  expounding 
the  force  of  terms,  the  import  of  metaphors,  &c.  ? 
Or  has  their  view  any  tendency  to  countenance  such 
extravagances?  Mr.  Wilson  might  as  plausibly 
trace  such  evils  to  overstrained  corollaries  from  the 
forty-se\'enth  proposition  of  the  fi.rst  book  of 
Euclid's  Elements.  Why,  Mr.  Wilson,  do  you  talk 
so  much  at  random  ?  This  loose  reasoning  has  no 
more  connection  with  the  principles  on  which  it  is 
professedly  founded,  than  it  has  with  theories  of 
the  formation  of  the  earth.  "If  the  book,"  con- 
tinues Mr.  Wilson,  "  is  considered  as  so  divine  in 
its  form,  as  well  as  its  matter,  as  to  exclude  man's 
agency."  Did  any  man  ever  hold  this  ?  Did  ever 
Mr.  Wilson  hear  of  any  one  who  denied  the  agency 
of  man  in  writing  the  Bible  ?  Especially  do  they 
on  whom  he  has  his  eye,  deny  the  employment  of 
man  as  a  rational  organ  in  the  writing  of  the 
Scriptures  ?  They  believe  indeed,  that  the  Bible  is 
as  divine  in  its  form,  as  in  its  matter,  and  as  human 
in  its  matter,  as  in  its  form.  But  both  as  to  matter 
and  form,  man  was  a  rational  organ  in  producing 
it.  "  If  the  humon  character  of  the  manner,"  says 
he,  ''is  forgotten — the  errors  which  may  rise,  are 
by  no  means  inconsiderable."  Who  can  forget 
that  the  Scriptui'es  ai*e  written  in  the  form  of  human 


THE   SCKIPTURES.  71 

writings  ?  This  may  be  remembered,  while  at  the 
same  time,  it  is  believed  that  they  have  received 
this  human  form  from  God.  But  that  we  may  not 
fight  in  the  dark,  let  us  see  what  those  errors  are. 
"  Truth  is  conveyed  off,  as  it  were,  into  the  lifeless 
reservoirs  of  human  contrivance,  instead  of  flowiug 
fresh  from  the  livins^  sources  of  the  divine  mind." 
Kow  a  Scripture  metaphor  I  could  expound,  but 
here  is  one  that  discards  the  efforts  of  criticism.  I 
can  attach  no  more  meaning  to  it,  than  if  it  were 
written  in  Chinese.  Let  us  then  examine  the  next 
supposed  error.  "  Harsh  aud  unnatural  interpre- 
tations are  imposed;  arguments  are  violated,  or 
misstated;  figures  and  parables  are  pushed  into 
minute  and  far-fetched  novelties."  How  do  any  of 
these  evils  result  from  the  belief  that  God  is  the 
author  of  the  Scriptures,  both  as  to  mamier  and 
matter  ?  Does  the  author  really  think  that  it  would 
be  lawful  to  impose  harsh  and  unnatural  interpre- 
tations, violate  or  misstate  arguments,  push  figures 
and  parables,  into  minute  and  far-fetched  novelties, 
on  the  supposition  that  God  had  written  the  Scrip- 
tures with  His  own  finger  ?  Is  there  any  difference 
as  to  the  interj^retation  of  a  parable  or  any  figure, 
whether  it  had  been  written  by  God  or  by  man  ? 
The  author  seems  constantly  to  labor  under  the 
strange  impression  that  if  God  should  speak  with- 
out human  instrumentality.  He  would  not  speak  in 
language  to  be  expounded  by  the  ordinary  laws  of 


72  IKSPIPwATION    OF 

speech.  "  Systems  of  theology,"  he  continues,  "  are 
framed  according  to  the  taste  and  habits  of  the 
student,  and  not  after  the  native  sim^Dlicity  of  the 
divine  word."  Many  systems  of  theology,  it  is  true, 
are  of  this  stamp,  but  it  is  not  the  result  of  too  high 
views  of  inspiration.  Strange,  indeed,  that  a  writer 
takes  up  his  pen,  with  the  conviction  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  so  eminently  inspired,  and  that  this  very 
conviction  leads  him  to  form  his  system  in  utter 
disregard  of  these  Scriptm-es !  "  A  few  j^assages 
are  taken  out  of  their  comiexion,  and  forced  to  an 
unnatural  sense,  and  then  the  Scriptures  comjDelled 
to  bend  to  that  exposition."  Yery  bad  indeed,  but 
overstraiued  views  of  inspiration  are  sui'ely  the  last 
thing  in  which  a  source  should  be  sought  for  such  * 
an  evil.  "  The  various  statements  and  arguments 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  instead  of  being  diligently 
examined  and  compared,  as  so  many  phenomena 
from  which  inferences  are  to  be  di-awn  with  the 
care  of  the  inductive  philosophy,  are  harshly  put 
together,  reduced  to  a  few  rigid  and  unbending 
propositions,  and  are  made  the  first  principles  of 
all  subsequent  advances.  By  these  means,  the 
doctrine  of  the  inspii-ation  is  overstrained,  and 
misapplied."  How  is  it  possible  that  any  reason- 
ing mind  could  connect  such  errors  with  the  opin- 
ion on  which  Mi*.  W.  supposes  them  to  be  founded? 
This,  surely,  is  a  noble  instance  of  the  inductive 
philosophy.     The  wildest  enthusiasm,   in  all  its 


THE   SCKIPTURES.  73 

phrenzj,  never  uttered  any  thing  more  extravagant 
than  this.  A  series  of  errors  are  ascribed  to  an 
origin  with  no  more  semblance  of  trnth,  than  if  they 
were  deduced  from  wi'ong  views  of  the  solar  system. 
Though  a  person  should  be  so  frantic  as  to  believe 
that  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures  were  unconscious 
organs,  as  devoid  of  understanding  at  the  moment 
as  Balaam's  ass,  his  opinion  would  have  no  tendency 
to  lead  to  any  of  the  above  errors.  It  is  mere 
raving  then  to  trace  them  to  such  a  source.  No 
man  can  be  more  destitute  of  a  philosophic  mind 
than  this  writer. 

"  Tlie  human  part  is  forgotten.  Men  pass  over 
and  obliterate  all  the  finer  traits,  all  the  hidden  and 
gentle  whispers  of  truth,  all  the  less  obvious,  and 
yet  natural  and  affecting  impressions  of  character." 
Here  again  the  writer  gets  into  mystery.  What 
are  these  finer  traits  that  are  passed  over  and  oblite- 
rated ?  How  are  they  obliterated,  if  they  are  passed 
over  ?  What  are  hidden  whispers  of  truth  ?  Who 
can  hide  a  whisper  ?  If  it  is  hidden,  how  is  it  ob- 
literated? Do  not  the  gentle  whispers  of  truth 
belong  to  the  matter  of  Scripture  ?  Are  they  man- 
ner merely;  form  without  substance?  What  in 
pla^n  English  is  the  meaning  of  this  sentence? 
Does  the  author  really  think  that  any  one  reads  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  or  Peter,  James  or  John,  without 
knowing  that  man  is  sjDeaking  as  well  as  God? 
Does  he  think  that  it  is  possible  to  overlook  the 


74  INSPIRATION   OF 

human  agency,  wliile  lie  is  acldi'essed  by  a  writer 
expressly  under  his  own  name  ?  Whatever  proba- 
bility there  may  be  that  some  will  forget  that  God 
speaks  through  man,  there  is  none  that  they  will 
forget  that  man  speaks  when  he  wiites  expressly 
with  his  own  signatm-e.  The  agency  of  man  is  not 
a  fine  trait,  not  a  gentle  whisper,  not  a  less  obvious 
impression;  but  the  most  prominent  feature  in 
revelation.  He  must  be  blind  indeed,  who  does  not 
see  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  v/riting-s.  Has  ever  tlie 
the  author  met  any  species  of  two-legged  animals 
who  are  guilty  of  the  errors  which  he  here  exposes  ? 
Yet  the  author  speaks  as  if  there  was  a  very  numer- 
ous class  of  this  description.  If  it  were  the  theme  of 
a  school-boy,  torturing  his  barren  brains  to  fill  up  a 
page  or  two,  such  a  creation  of  fancied  evils  might 
find  some  apology.  But  on  so  grave  a  subject,  it  is 
utterly  vdthout  excuse.  There  cannot  exist  an  indi- 
vidual, who  in  reading  the  Scriptures,  overlooks 
the  agency  of  man.  Is  it  then  consistent  with 
intesritv,  to  create  a  class  of  fanatics  so  extrava- 
gantly  frantic,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  disgracing 
a  disagreeable  sentiment  ? 

And  what  connexion  has  the  quotation  from  Lord 
Bacon  with  this  subject?  As  much  as  it  has  with 
the  theory  of  the  tides.  Lord  Bacon  prefers  short, 
sound,  judicious  notes  and  observations  on  Scrip- 
ture, to  those  commentaries  that  abound  in  common 
places,  pursue  controversies,  and   are  reduced   to 


THE    SCEIPTURES. 


artificial  method.  Well,  vv^liat  has  this  to  6ay  on 
the  subject  of  inspiration  ?  His  lordship  illustrates 
his  meaning  by  a  figure.  The  wine  that  flows  from 
the  first  treading  of  the  grape,  is  sweeter  and  bet- 
ter than  that  forced  out  by  the  press.  Whatever 
propriety  of  application  this  beautiful  figure  has  to 
the  subject  which  it  is  brought  to  illustrate,  it  can 
have  no  application  to  Mr.  Wilson's  purpose.  Cer- 
tainly it  was  not  from  a  gentle  crush  of  tlie  Scrip- 
tures that  the  author's  theory  of  inspiration  flowed. 
All  the  power  of  the  j?re^5  could  not  force  it  out  of 
the  words  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspiration 
of  God,"  nor  from  any  other  words  in  the  Bible. 
It  is  not  merely  the  roughness  of  the  husk  and  the 
stone  that  we  find  in  this  wine ;  we  complain  that 
it  is  a  wretched  beverage,  produced  by  pouring 
water  on  the  lees. 


EEMARKS  ON  THE  EEYIEW 


KEV.     D.VNIEL    WILSON's    THEOKY    OF    INSPIRATION. 


It  is  fortunate  for  Mr.  Wilson,  that  all  reviewers 
are  not  of  my  way  of  tliinking  on  these  matters. 
Some  of  them  will,  no  doubt,  consider  him  as  car- 
rying his  ideas  of  inspiration  much  too  far.  Even 
some  who  have  professed  evangelical  sentiments 
have  made  much  greater  havoc  on  the  Scriptures. 
Tlie  most  rigidly  orthodox  reviewers,  it  seems,  are 
quite  satisfied  with  his  views.  Tlie  evangelical 
press  of  England,  I  have  no  doubt,  will  be  on^  his 
side.  The  Christian  Observer  ai)pears  to  consider 
itself  as  very  scrupulous  on  the  subject,  yet  it  pro- 
fesses a  substantial  concurrence  in  his  doctrine.  It 
will  be  but  justice  then  to  Mr.  Wilson  to  exhibit 
the  judgment  of  this  Review  by  the  side  of  my 
remarks.  I  have  no  wish  to  conceal  any  thing  that 
may  be  supposed  to  throw  light  upon  a  point  which 
I  deem  so  vitally  important. 

Tlie  Christian  Observer's  account  of  Mr.  Wilson's 
theory,  is  contained  in  the  following  extract.     "  The 


78  I^'SPmATION   OF 

next  Lecture  introduces  us  to  a  subject  of  mucli 
difficulty ;  namelv,  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  leaving  no  defect  or  error  in  the  reli- 
gious revelation ;  and  the  human  form,  the  mould, 
the  peculiar  character,  the  natural  methods  of  ex- 
pression ;  the  poetry,  the  history,  the  devotion,- — ■ 
in  short,  the  whole  apparatus  of  earthly  instrumen- 
tality, all  impressed  with  the  stamp  of  man,  all 
intelligible  to  man,  all  to  be  interpreted  by  the 
laws  of  ordinary  sense,  and  constantly  applied  by 
grammatical,  logical  and  historical  niles.  Mr.  Wil- 
son considers  the  matter  all  divine — the  manner  all 
human ;  that  is,  with  a  constant  preservation  fi*om 
all  errors  affecting  the  revelation.  He  views  the 
Bible  as  God  speaking  to  man,  not  by  angels,  nor 
in  the  language,  nor  with  the  ideas,  associations, 
and  style  of  angels,  if  angels  have  such  characte- 
ristics, but  by  man,  in  the  language  of  man,  and 
with  the  ideas,  associations,  and  style  of  man." 

Though  the  first  sentence  is  not  remarkable  for  its 
clearness  and  precision,  this  extract  will  show  that 
I  have  not  misrepresented  Mr.  Wilson's  meaning. 
My  view  of  it  is  substantially  the  same  with  that 
given  here.  The  Scriptures  are  impressed  With 
the  stamp  of  man,  that  is,  they  are  written  as  if 
each  of  the  wi'iters  were  communicating  his  own 
thoughts.  Did  any  man  ever  doubts  this  ?  Is  this 
a  discovery?  "Was  there  ever  a  reader  of  the 
Scriptures  who  was  so  ignorant  as  not   to  know 


THE    SClilPTURES.  79 

this?  But  have  not  the  thoughts,  reasoning  and 
arguments  the  same  impression  ?  Could  not  God 
as  easily  use  the  respective  style  of  the  writers  of 
revelation,  as  He  has  used  their  thoughts,  reason- 
ing and  arguments?  Has  He  not  communicated 
His  truth  and  will  to  us  through  the  thoughts,  rea- 
soning and  arguments  of  the  inspired  writers,  as 
well  as  through  their  style?  The  Epistle  to  the 
Komans,  or  to  the  Galations,  &c.,  is  as  much  Paul's 
matter  as  Paul's  manner.  Both  are  his  in  one 
sense ;  both  are  God's  in  another.  The  style  is  the 
style  of  Paul,  but  could  not  God  use  that  style 
Vv' hen  He  wrote  by  Paul  ?  The  thoughts  also  are 
Paul's  thoughts;  but  could  not  God  convey  His 
mind  in  the  way  of  Paul's  thinking  and  reasoning  ? 
If  these  gentlemen  possessed  a  little  philosophical 
perspicacity,  they  would  perceive  that  there  is  no 
difference  in  this  matter  between  the  thoughts  and 
the  style,  both  equally  possessing  the  marks  of  the 
mind  of  man.  There  is  no  more  reason  from  this 
human  impression  to  conclude  that  the  manner  was 
without  God  as  to  the  style  than  as  to  the  matter. 

But  not  only  has  every  thing  in  Scripture,  accord- 
ing to  these  writers,  the  stamp  of  man,  but  what 
must  be  equally  surprising,  "all  is  intelligible  to 
man."  !N"ow  is  this  a  peculiarity  in  the  manner  of 
insj)iration ?  What  childish  trifling!  Must  not 
revelation  have  been  intelligible  to  man  in  what- 
ever way  inspired?    In  whatever  way  communi- 


so  I>:SPmATIOX   OF 

cated  ?  Had  God  given  it  by  angels  would  it  not 
have  been  intelligible  ?  Had  He  given  it  imme- 
diately from  His  own  hand,  would  it  not  have  been 
intelligible?  What  peculiar  darkness  is  in  the 
messages  delivered  by  angels  ?  Have  these  gentle- 
men ever  read  the  Ten  Commandments  ?  Is  not 
the  language  of  the  tables  of  the  law  sufficiently 
perspicuous  ? 

But  not  only  are  all  things  intelligible  to  man,  it 
is  added,  "  all  to  be  interpreted  by  the  laws  of  ordi- 
nary sense,  and  constantly  applied  by  grammatical, 
logical,  and  rhetorical  rules."  And  if  God  had 
written  the  Scriptures  Himself,  or  given  them 
through  man  as  an  unconscious  instrument,  would 
not  this  have  been  equally  the  case?  Must  not 
every  thing  written  in  any  language  necessarily  be 
understood  in  the  sense  of  that  language  ?  To  say 
that  God  might  have  written  His  word  in  human 
language,  and  that  its  meaning  was  not  to  be 
judged  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  that  language,  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  For  if  it  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  of  the  language,  it  is  not  in  the 
language.  The  fact  that  revelation  is  wiitten  in 
the  peculiar  style  of  each  of  the  inspired  writers,  is 
a  peculiarity  in  inspiration  worthy  of  being  noticed ; 
and  from  it  doubtless  we  may  derive  iustruction ; 
but  that  it  is  wi'itten  in  our  language,  and  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense  of  the  language  in  which  it 
is  ^vl•itten,  and  that  it  is  intelligible  to  men,  are  no 


INSPIRATION   OF  81 

peculiarities.  To  meiitioii  sncli  things  as  a  clistin- 
guisliing  part  of  inspiration  is  the  most  sillj  trilling. 
The  same  may  be  said  with  respect  to  the  alterna- 
tive of  s|)eaking  by  angels.  "  He  views  the  Bible," 
says  the  reviewer,  "  as  God  speakuig  to  man,  not 
by  angels,"  &c.  And  did  ever  any  one  take  a 
different  view  of  this  matter  ?  Was  it  ever  thought 
that  the  Bible  was  written  by  angels  in  the  language 
of  angels?  A  most  important  discovery  surely, 
that  the  Bible  was  not  written  in  the  language  of 
angels !  By  angels  it  might  have  been  written  or 
by  the  finger  of  God ;  but  whether  by  the  one  or  by 
the  other,  it  must  have  been  written  in  the  language 
of  those  to  whom  it  was  designed  to  be  a  revelation. 
The  language  of  angels,  then,  it  is  absurd  to  men- 
tion as  an  alternative.  What  Cimmerian  darkness 
is  it  then  that  clouds  the  minds  of  these  wi'iters, 
that  as  often  as  they  make  the  6uj)position  that  God 
or  angels  had  written  a  revelation  for  man,  they 
think  it  might  have  been  wi'itten  in.  the  language 
of  heaven!  A  book  written  in  the  language  of 
angels,  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  as  a  revelation  to 
man. 

Let  the  reader  observe  in  this  extract  the  limita- 
tion even  to  diviue  superintendence  in  the  writing 
of  the  Scriptures — "with  a  constant  preservation 
from  all  error  affecting  the  revelation."  I  noticed 
the  same  thing  in  Mr.  Wilson  as  this  reviewer  has 
done.    According  to  this,  the  writers  of  Scriptui-e 


82  INSPIRATION   OF 

•were  not  preserved  from  all  error,  but  only  from 
sucli  error  as  should  afiect  the  revelation.  This, 
however,  seems  inconsistent  with  many  of  Mr. 
Wilson's  assertions. 

The  review^ers  next  inform  us  :  "  We  have  often 
thought  long  and  anxiously  on  this  much  contro- 
verted question ;  nor  are  we  wholly  ignorant  of 
what  the  most  celebrated  biblical  writers  and  theo- 
logians have  written  upon  it,  or  of  the  difficulties 
w^hich  may  be  supposed  to  attach  themselves  to 
whatever  conclusions  we  may  adopt.''  If  these 
gentlemen  would  consult  the  Scriptures  with  the 
teachableness  of  little  children,  they  might  sooner 
come  to  their  purpose,  than  either  by  abstract 
thinking  on  the  question  as  a  subject  of  controversy, 
or  by  poring  over  the  volumes  of  biblical  writers. 
The  last  is  an  aid  not  to  be  despised ;  but  I  am 
convinced  that  an  implicit  reliance  on  it,  to  the 
neglect  of  the  first,  is  the  cause  of  much  of  the  very 
great  ignorance  of  the  learned  with  respect  to  this 
subject.  As  long  as  men  attempt  to  surmount  all 
difficulties  by  untaught  distinctions  in  inspiration, 
and  by  theories  founded  merely  on  supposition, 
instead  of  submitting  to  the  testimony  of  God,  that 
"  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  it 
may  be  exj)ected  that,  like  the  sorcerer  who 
opposed  Paul,  they  w^ill  seek  one  to  lead  them  at 
noon-day.  Tliat  there  are  difficulties  connected 
with  inspiration,  I  do  not  deny ;  for  I  do  not  know 


TIIE   SCRTPTUKER.  83 

any  trutli  or  duty  revealed  in  Scripture  that  has 
not  its  difficulties.  But  this  I  know,  that  the 
authors  of  the  late  theories  have  not  in  the  smallest 
degree  contributed  to  remove  these  difficulties. 
Tlie  greatest  of  these  difficulties  remain,  even  were 
any  of  these  theories  admitted.  The  greatest  diffi- 
culties that  have  ever  occurred  to  me  do  not  at  all 
respect  the  complete  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
both  in  matter  and  words.  All  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  inspiration  of  every  word  m  the  original 
Scriptures  demands,  is,  that  every  thing  written  in 
them  was  written  by  inspiration.  This  has  no 
more  difficulty  when  it  applies  to  the  advice  of 
Gamaliel,  or  the  Letter  of  Claudius  Lysias,  the 
chief  Captain,  than  when  it  applies  to  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  That  every  word  of  Scripture  has 
been  inspired,  does  not  imply  that  every  speech  or 
sentiment  recorded  there  should  be  inspired.  The 
Letter  of  Claudius  Lysias  was  not  inspired,  but  it 
is  inserted  in  tlie  Scriptures  by  inspiration;  and 
for  a  purj)ose  useful  for  the  edification  of  the  man 
of  God.  To  this  view  of  inspiration  I  have  never 
met  an  objection  that  could  detain  me  for  a  mo- 
ment. All  that  Mr.  Wilson  and  the  Christian 
Observer  bring  forward  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
it.  What  they  allege,  is  a  thing  so  obvious  that  it 
could  lie  hid  from  no  child  that  is  able  to  read  the 
Scriptures ;  and  instead  of  being  in  opposition  to 
my  sentiments,  is   taken   for   granted   in  all   my 


84:  INSriSA^TIOX    OF 

reasoning.  Panl'S  writings  are  in  PanPs  style; 
but  tliis  applies  to  tlie  thonglits  as  well  as  the 
form. 

"  Our  general  impression  upon  the  whole,"  say 
the  reviewers,  "  we  confess,  is  that  Mr.  Wilson  is 
not  far  from  having  arrived  at  the  true  philosophy 
of  the  matter."  The  thing  under  discussion  is  not 
a  matter  of  philosophy,  nor  to  be  ascertained  by 
philosophical  investigation.  It  is  a  matter  of  divine 
testimony,  the  meaning  of  which  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  laws  of  language.  God  says,  "  All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God;"  Mr. 
Wilson,  on  the  contrary,  says,  some  part  of  Scrip- 
ture is  human.  Mr.  Wilson's  philosophy  then  teaches 
him  to  contradict  God.  But  Mr.  Wilson's  theory 
is  as  bad  philosophy  as  it  is  bad  theology.  It 
makes  a  part  contained,  no  portion  of  the  whole 
that  contains  it.  The  manner  is  supposed  not  to 
belong  to  the  writing  of  which  it  is  the  manner. 
The  style  belongs  to  the  writing ;  and  if  all  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration,  the  mamier  of  Scripture 
must  be  given  by  inspiration.  'No  theory  was  ever 
propounded  with  less  philosophical  perspicacity  than 
this.  It  distino;uishes  what  cannot  be  distino-uished ; 
and  ascribes  effects  to  causes  with  which  they  have 
not  the  slightest  connection.  Besides,  this  theory 
makes  only  the  matter  divine.  Then  the  words 
are  not  divine.  Are  the  words  the  matter  ?  Yet 
it  makes  the  words  of  a  great  part  of  the  Scrip- 


THE    SCRirTUEES.  85 

tnres  to  be  divine  as  well  as  tlie  matter.  Is  this 
philosopliy  ? 

Again,  it  makes  all  tlie  matter  divine,  yet  it 
makes  a  great  part  of  tlie  matter  human,  supplied 
from  the  som'ces  of  the  private  knowledge,  infor- 
mation, &c.  of  the  different  wi-iters.  Is  this  phi- 
losophy? 'NoY  are  these  the  only  inconsistencies 
of  this  theory.  "While  it  makes  all  the  matter 
divine,  it  supposes  the  possibility  even  of  some 
error  in  the  matter,  in  things  that  do  not  respect 
the  revelation. 

Again,  it  makes  the  inspiration  itself  the  joint 
production  of  God  and  man.     Is  this  philosophy  ? 

Still  farther,  it  makes  only  the  manner  human, 
yet  it  allows  "  the  greatest  freedom  and  latitude  in 
the  use  of  each  ^vi-iter's  knowledge  and  talents  and 
ordinary  means  of  information."  Is  not  this  some- 
thing more  than  manner  ?  In  the  exercise  of  this 
freedom  did  they  mtroduce  no  matter  ?  If  it  is 
said  that  they  were  superintended  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  matter,  I  reply  that  then  they  had  not 
the  gTcatest  freedom  and  latitude.  I  reply  farther, 
that  superintendence  is  not  inspiration,  and  that 
things  introduced  under  superintendence  are  not 
mere  manner.  Tliere  is  no  consistency  in  this 
theory. 

"  We  would,  on  the  one  hand,"  say  the  reviewers, 
"zealously  maintain  against  the  semi-sceptic  or 
Socinian  dlsputer,  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 


86  INSPIRATION   OF 

Scriptm-es ;  we  would  not  allow  for  a  moment, 
with  the  Belshams  and  Priestlvs  of  England,  or 
the  IS'eologians  of  Germany,  that  an  apostle  or 
Baptist  may  maintain  true  conclusions  from  incon- 
clusive arguments ;  that  Jewish  prejudices  were 
allowed  to  pervert  the  Christian  records ;  that  the 
Evangelists  were  little  more  than  mere  ordinary 
relators  of  a  true  story ;  or  that  a  God  of  infinite 
wisdom  permitted  His  record  of  mercy  to  a  perish- 
ing world  to  be  liable  to  take  any  doubtful  coloring 
by  passing  through  a  human  medium,  what  it  must 
have  done,  had  it  not  been  dictated  by  His  imme- 
diate and  infallible  inspiration." 

I  may  here  remark  the  want  of  candor  in  such  a 
use  of  the  word  jylenary.  Surely  plenary  insjyirct- 
t'lon  cannot  apply  to  the  views  of  those  who  make 
any  exceptions  to  the  inspirations  of  the  Scriptures. 
Does  not  this  phrase  refer  to  every  thing  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  every  word  of  the  Scri])tures  ? 
Is  it  not  then  an  abuse  of  language  to  speak  of 
holding  plenary  inspiration,  while  some  things  in 
Scripture  are  expressly  excepted  from  inspiration  ? 
This  is  a  mean  artifice  to  sap  the  foundation  of 
the  full  inspiration  of  Scripture  under  the  mask 
of  holding  it.  To  those  unacquainted  with  what 
has  been  wi-itten  on  the  subject,  the  phrase^Z^?iar?/ 
inspiration  would  undoubtedly  convey  a  meaning 
very  difierent  from  that  in  which  it  is  dishonestly 
used  by  many  wi'iters.     With  what  propriety  can 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  87 

persons  assert  that  they  liokl  the  doctrine  of  plenary 
inspiration,  when,  according  to  their  systems,  much 
of  the  Scriptures  was  not  inspired  at  all  ?  Some 
part  of  it  belongs  to  man,  and  in  many  things  he 
was  only  superintended,  wdiich  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  inspiration.  But  why  are  the  poor  Bel- 
shams  and  Priestlys,  with  the  E"eologians  of  Ger- 
many, not  to  1)0  indulged  in  the  exceptions  which 
they  make  to  inspiration.  Is  this  high  popish  pre- 
rogative, of  distinguishing  and  limiting,  where  there 
are  no  distinctions  or  limitations  in  Scripture,  to  bo 
confined  to  Evansrelical  divines  alone  ?  Must  the 
Belshams  and  Priestlys  surrender  to  the  more 
orthodox  zeal  and  predilections  of  the  Christian 
Observer  ?  What  is  it  that  can  put  do^vn  the  im- 
pious ^^ews  of  Belsham  and  Priestly  on  this  sub- 
ject? 'No  abstract  reasoning;  no  abhorrence  of 
Christian  Observers,  no  a  priori  evidence, — nothing 
but  the  declarations  of  God  in  the  Scriptures.  God 
says,  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  insj^iration  of  God." 
This  cuts  down  the  horrible  blasphemy  of  Belsham 
and  Priestly ;  and  this  equally  cuts  down  the  less 
horrible  blasphemy  of  the  Rev.  D.  AYilson  and  the 
Christian  Observer.  Tlie  man  who  makes  any 
exception,  cannot  consistently  refuse  any  other  ex- 
ception. The  difference  between  Mr.  AVilson  and 
Dr.  Priestly  is  only  in  degree.  Both  proceed  on 
the  same  principle,  though  the  evangelical  minister 
may  not  choose  to  carry  his  doctrine  as  far  as  the 


88  INSPIRATION   OF 

Socinian  pliilosoi:)liy.  Tlie  Christian  Observer  is 
sliocked  with  the  heresy  that  makes  the  Evangelists 
little  more  than  mere  ordinary  relaters  of  a  true 
story ;  yet  how  much  higher  does  even  Mr.  Wilson 
place  them  in  some  parts  of  their  narrative  ?  The 
Christian  Observer  thinks  it  necessary  that  the 
record  of  mercy  should  be  dictated  by  immediate 
inspiration.  But  is  this  the  kind  of  inspiration  for 
which  Mr.  Wilson  contends  in  the  Evangelists? 
Much  of  the  record  is  not  by  inspiration  at  all. 

"Yet,  at  the  same  time,''  says  the  Christian 
Observer,  "  does  not  every  divine,  even  those  who 
would  most  strongly  object  to  the  latter  part  of 
Mr.  Wilson's  statements ;  nay,  does  not  the  most 
uninstructed  person  who  thinks  the  very  words  of 
Ejng  James'  translation,  the  original  diction  of  the 
Holy  Spii'it,  familiarly  speak  of  the  respective  styles 
of  St.  Paul  or  St.  John ;  of  the  sublimity  of  Isaiah, 
or  the  pathos  of  Jeremiah;  of  the  characteristic 
pecuharities  of  the  four  Evangelists,  all  relating  the 
same  truths  by  the  same  inspiration,  yet  each  in  a 
manner  which  may  be  justly  called  his  own?" 
Yery  true,  that  there  is  a  distinction  in  the  style 
of  the  different  writers  of  Scripture,  and  that  each 
wi'iter  may  be  said  to  have  his  own.  Learned  and 
unlearned  admit  this.  The  defenders  of  the  fall 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  speak  of  this,  as  well 
as  their  opponents.  But  what  is  the  inference 
from  all  this  ?    Is  it  that  Mr.  Wilson  has  made  a 


THE   SCKIFrUBES.  89 

discovery,  wlieii  lie  has  turned  into  a  theory  what 
is  admitted  by  all  ?  Is  it  that,  as  the  writers  of 
Scripture  have  a  characteristic  style,  they  were  not 
influenced  by  God  in  the  use  of  that  style  ?  Is  it 
not  possible  that  God  could  employ  their  style  as 
v/ell  as  their  tongue  or  pen  ?  Yes,  we  talk  fami- 
liarly of  Paul's  peculiar  style,  and  of  John's  pecu- 
liar style;  and  we  talk  as  familiarly  of  Paul's 
doctrine,  of  Paul's  reasoning,  &c.  Put  in  so  speak- 
ing we  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  the  writings  of 
Paul,  both  in  doctrine  and  style,  are  not  God's. 
Indeed,  the  very  universality  of  the  fact  of  such  a 
manner  of  speaking,  is  the  strongest  evidence,  that 
there  is  no  apposition  between  the  supposition  of  a 
characteristic  style,  and  the  belief  that  this,  in 
another  point  of  view,  is  the  work  of  God.  As  the 
most  ignorant  persons  find  no  difficulty  in  admitting, 
that  the  Scriptures  may  be  written  in  the  respective 
styles  of  the  different  writers,  while  they  believe 
that  every  word  of  the  Scriptures  is  inspu-ed,  why 
will  the  learned  conjure  up  a  difficulty  to  give 
scope  to  their  ingenuity  in  forming  theories  ?  But 
where  have  these  sages  found  the  man  w^ho  believes 
that  the  very  words  of  the  authorized  version,  are 
the  original  diction  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Is  there 
any  one  able  to  read  the  Bible,  who  believes  that 
it  was  written  in  English?  But  this  is  not  all. 
This  person  who  thinks  that  the  Bible  was  origi- 
nally written  in  English,  is  quite  conversant  with 


90  '  INSPIRATION    OF 

the  characteristic  style  of  each  of  the  inspired 
wi'iters ;  and  can  speak  as  accurately  as  Longinus 
himself,  of  the  sublimity  of  the  one,  the  pathos  of 
the  other,  &c.  What  a  compound  of  ignorance  and 
knowled2:e  must  he  be  ? 

The  reviewers  proceed:  "Mathematically  to 
adjust  correctly  the  two  points  in  their  minute 
boimdaries,  may  not  be  easy ;  but  it  appears  to  us 
to  be  an  excess  of  scrupulosity  to  deny,  when 
expressly  reasoning  on  the  subject,  what  we  con- 
stantly admit  when  not  thinking  of  it."  "What 
have  mathematics  to  do  with  settling  metaphysical 
distinctions  ?  "Were  an  angel  to  draw  the  line,  it 
could  not  be  done  mathematically.  There  is  no 
more  propriety  in  bringing  mathematics  to  settle  a 
difficulty  on  the  subject  of  inspiration,  than  in 
bringing  a  text  from  the  Bible  to  settle  a  point  in 
the  conic  sections.  But  the  distinction  as  to  the 
present  subject,  is  not  a  line  separating  between 
adjacent  territories ;  the  same  territory  belongs  to 
different  occuj^iers,  to  the  one  it  belongs  in  one 
sense,  to  the  other  in  another.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Eomans,  for  instance,  is  the  Epistle  of  Paul,  con- 
tains the  thoughts,  reasoning,  arguments,  language, 
and  style  of  Paul;  but  the  same  Epistle  is  the 
word  of  God,  both  in  style  and  matter.  It  would 
not  only  be  "an  excess  of  scrupulosity  to  deny, 
when  expressly  reasoning  on  the  subject,  what  we 
constantly  admit  when  not  thinkmg  of  it,"  but  it 


THE    SCRIPTUKES.  01 

would  also  be  extreme  folly.  But  at  all  times,  we 
are  willing  to  make  tlie  admission  in  the  amplest 
terms.  Did  any  man  ever  deny,  in  reasoning  on 
this  subject,  that  the  Scriptures  have  the  character- 
istic style  of  their  different  writers  ? 

In  illustration  of  this  variety  of  characteristic 
style,  substantially  expressing  the  same  thing,  the 
reviewers  give  us  an  example.  "  Take  a  familiar 
example,  a  parent  says  separately  to  four  children, 
'  Call  your  brother  Kichard.'  One  simj^ly  repeats 
the  message  as  the  words  of  his  parent :  '  Richard, 
my  father  desires  me  to  call  you.'  A  second  makes 
the  message  his  own :  '  Kichard,  my  father  wants 
you.'  A  third  repeats  it  as  an  injunction :  '  Rich- 
ard, you  must  go  to  my  father.'  The  fourth : 
'  Brother  Richard,  pray  run  directly  to  our  dear 
father,  for  he  wants  to  speak  to  you.'  Are  not  all 
these  exactly  the  father's  message,  and  is  it  to  con- 
travene this  proposition  to  say  that  each  was  deliv- 
ered in  a  manner  characteristic  of  the  respective 
speakers  ?"  'Now  this  example  is  entirely  unsuited 
to  the  illustration  of  the  point  for  which  it  is 
brought.  It  gives  a  mere  variety  of  expression, 
but  by  no  means  four  characteristic  styles.  So  far 
from  this,  the  very  same  individual  might,  m  deliv- 
ering the  message,  on  different  occasions,  use  each 
of  these  forms  of  expression.  Yes,  and  twenty 
other  similar  varieties.  Indeed,  in  repeating  a 
message  to  different  individuals  separately,  who  is 


92  INSPIRATION   OF 

it  that  keeps  by  a  single  mode  of  expression  ?  A 
liundred  sucli  varieties  are  consistent  with  the  style 
of  the  same  speaker. 

As  an  illustration  of  substantial  harmony,  the 
example  is  equally  defective.  Did  any  one  ever 
Bui^pose,  that  mere  variety  of  expression  is  contra- 
diction. The  most  inveterate  hater  of  the  word 
of  God,  would  never  allege  any  inconsistency  in 
this,  if  he  met  it  in  the  Scrip tm-es.  There  is  not 
even  the  shadow  of  an  aj^pearance  of  contradic- 
tion. The  relation  of  each  of  the  brothers  is  as 
much,  and  as  directly,  the  father's  message,  as  words 
could  express.  Did  not  each  call  Richard  ?  What 
else  was  the  command  of  the  father  ?  This  exam- 
ple, then,  does  not  correspond  to  any  of  the  appa- 
rent discrepancies  in  the  account  of  the  Evangelists, 
to  which  the  infidel  objects.  Of  what  avail  would 
such  an  example  be  to  harmonize  the  fom*  accounts 
of  the  inscription  over  the  cross  ?  Listead  of  send- 
ing fom'  messengers  to  one  person,  it  would  have 
been  more  to  the  pui'pose  to  have  sent  one  messen- 
ger, and  have  given  four  winters  to  report  the 
delivery  of  the  message,  with  such  a  variety  as  the 
Gospels  give  of  the  above  fact.  Lideed,  to  send 
four  messengers  on  such  an  errand,  was  a  very 
clumsy  expedient.  The  invention  of  a  reviewer 
ought  to  be  more  fertile  in  resources.  K  the  diffi- 
culties on  the  subject  of  inspii-ation  were  of  the 
nature  that  this  example  supposes,  it  would  be  an 


THE   SCKIPTl'KES.  93 

easy  thing  indeed  to  clear  them  away.  He  mnst 
be  a  sceptic  indeed  who  alleges  that,  when  a  num- 
ber of  persons  are  commanded  to  call  an  individual 
the  message  is  not  executed,  except  they  all  use  the 
same  words.  Certamly  the  reviewers  have  thought 
long,  and  anxiously,  and  profoundly  on  this  subject. 
After  their  able  solutions  of  the  most  formidable 
objections,  infidelity  must  ever  after  feel  abashed. 
^  The  reviewers  are  of  opinion  that  it  does  not 
derogate  from  the  author's  conclusions  of  full  in- 
spiration, that  he  has  admitted  "though  perhaps 
not  in  the  most  desirable  words,  a  wonderful  union 
of  divine  and  human  agency  in  that  inspiration." 
So  then,  it  appears  the  reviewers  agree  with  the 
author  in  making  man's  part  in  the  business  a  con- 
stituent of  inspiration.  Man,  it  seems,  has  partly 
inspired  the  Scriptures.  And  do  the  reviewers 
really  think,  that  it  does  not  derogate  from  full 
inspiration,  that  a  part  has  been  effected  by  m.an 
without  God?  Indeed  they  object  to  the  author's 
phraseology.  Tliey  would  not  say,  that  "  the  Scrip- 
tures are  both  human  and  divine ;"  but  they  say, 
"when  he  explicates  his  proposition,  we  agree  with 
him."  Now  in  what  sense  can  it  be  said'j  that  the 
Scriptures  are  human,  in  consistency  with  the 
as-sertion  that  they  are  all  divine,  or  fully  inspired  ? 
Only  as  they  are  \\Titten  by  the  instrumentality  of 
man,  in  the  style  of  man,  and  after  the  manner  of 
human  writings.     But  this  will  not  serve  the  pur- 


9-1  IXSPIEATION   OF 

pose  of  the  author's  theory.  This  theory  makes 
them  human  as  a  constitueiit  part  of  tlieir  composi- 
tion ;  a  part  in  which  God  has  no  hand.  N'ow  if 
there  is  any  thing  merely  human  in  the  Scriptures, 
it  cannot  be  true  that  they  are  wholly  of  God,  or 
fully  inspired.  The  author's  doctrine,  then,  is  a 
self-contradiction.  The  only  reason  why  this  con- 
tradiction lies  hid  from  the  smallest  critical  discern- 
ment, is,  that  by  the  assertion  that  the  style  and 
manner  are  human,  he  frequently  means  no  more 
than  what  every  one  admits,  namely,  that  they  are 
the  characteristic  style  and  manner  of  the  writers. 
In  this  light  the  Christian  Observer  seems  to  con- 
sider his  doctrine ;  but  in  this  sense  there  is  nothing 
in  the  assertion  that  can  entitle  it  to  be  called  a 
theory  of  Mr.  Wilson's.  Besides,  his  assertions 
again  and  again  make  the  style  and  manner  a  dis- 
tinct part  in  the  composition  of  the  ScrijDtures,  in 
which  God  had  no  hand. 

But  why  do  the  reviewers  refuse  to  say  that  the 
Scriptures  are  human  as  well  as  divine,  if  they 
adopt  the  author's  conclusions?  K  a  constituent 
part  of  the  composition  belongs  to  man  in  such  a 
sense  that  it  does  not  also  belong  to  God,  is  not 
such  a  fact  as  truly  human  as  the  rest  is  divine  ? 
Indeed,  according  to  Mr.  Wilson,  the  Scriptm-es 
are  neither  human  nor  divine ;  they  are  not,  as  he 
asserts,  in  contradiction  to  himself,  aU  human  and 
all   divine;    they   are   partly   human   and   partly 


THE   SCRIPTrRES.  95 

divine.  But  according  to  Lis  tlieorv,  tliey  are  as 
truly  human  as  they  are  divine.  The  Christian 
Observer  then  appears  to  be  very  slightly  acquainted 
with  this  subject. 

It  is  much  to  be  lamented,  that  a  periodical 
which  has  so  much  influence  on  the  Christian 
public,  should  express  itself  substantially  satisfied 
with  a  theory  of  inspiration  v/hich  lovv'ers  the 
character  of  the  divine  word,  without  even  the 
alleviating  cii'cumstance  of  removing  a  single 
difficulty  connected  with  the  subject.  Tliat  so 
crude  a  theory  should  be  dignified  as  a  philoso- 
phical solution  of  a  difiicult  theological  question, 
hitherto  unanswered,  must  surprise  every  one  capa- 
ble of  analysing  the  author's  paradoxes.  Indeed,  a 
paradoxical  way  of  speaking  is  the  only  thing 
original  in  this  scheme.  Let  it  be  divested  of  this 
and  nothing  is  left  for  Mr.  Wilson.  The  fact  that 
in  the  Scriptures  there  is  a  human  manner,  has 
never  been  questioned — ^has  never  been  unknown. 
That  not  only  the  manner,  but  the  thoughts, 
reasonings,  and  conclusions  may  all  be  ascribed  to 
the  "svi'iters,  is  a  thing  that  no  man  who  reads  the 
Bible  can  question.  How  then  can  Mr.  Wilson 
deserve  the  credit  of  unveiling  an  important  hidden 
truth?  What  has  he  discovered  that  was  not 
always  known  ?  To  the  careless  reader,  who  never 
thinks  of  forming  accurate  ideas  of  what  lies  before 
him,  there  is,  in  Mr.  Wilson's  language,  the  appear- 


96        '         INSPIBATION   OF  THE  BCKIPTURES. 

anceof  great  depth  and  metaphysical  acumen  in 
reconciling  thmgs  apparently  incongruous;  but 
^hen  it  is  more  closely  examined,  at  turns  out  to 
be  a  pompous  way  of  saying  nothmg.  _  But  if  God 
is  in  very  deed  the  Author  of  the  Scriptures,  how 
guilty  must  he  be,  who  has  exerted  his  ingenuity 
to  deprive  Him  of  any  partrof  them!  How  gmlty 
must  they  be  who  encourage  him  in  this  sacrilege  1 


STRICTURES    ON    SOME    PARTS 


KEMAKKS  OF  THE  ECCLECTIC  KEYIEW, 


GOSPEL   OF   ST.    LUKE. 


It  will  be  recollected  that  it  was  in  the  Ecclectic 
Review  that  the  infidel  paper  appeared,  which 
excludes  from  the  sacred  canon  of  inspired  Scrip- 
ture, a  considerable  portion  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  mil  not  therefore  appear  surprising  to  any  who 
are  acquainted  with  this  fact,  that  the  same  pro- 
fessedly Evangelical  publication  has,  in  its  review 
of  Dr.  Schleiermacher's  Critical  Essay  on  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke,  audaciously  charged  the  Evangelists 
with  falsehood.  The  accounts  in  the  different  Gos- 
pels are,  according  to  the  reviewers,  in  some  points 
so  contradictory  that  they  have  fearlessly  adopted 
the  conclusion  that  the  writers  of  them  have  erred. 

The  work  which  they  profess  to  review  is  on  the 
origination  of  the  Gosj^els,  and  is  of  an  entirely 
jSTeological  cast.  The  reviewers,  indeed,  censure 
his   boldness   and   condemn   his   errors,  but  they 


98  IKSPIRATION  OF 

approach  liiin  with  such  awe  and  tunidity,  that 
their  gentle  reproach  must  be  very  agreeable  to 
him,  if  he  has  any  vanity.  I  shall  not  trouble 
myself  with  the  review,  farther  than  respects  the 
subject  of  inspiration.  Schleiermacher's  book  is 
one  of  those  productions  that  j)rofesses  to  throw 
light  upon  the  subject  of  the  Evangelical  History, 
by  tracing  the  different  Gospels  to  their  origin. 
Such  writers  suppose  that  they  can  discover  the 
different  external  sources  from  which  the  Evan- 
gelists took  their  accounts,  and  that  this  discovery 
removes  the  difficulties  felt  from  the  disagreement 
of  their  narratives.  The  elucidation  of  this  ques- 
tion has  occupied  some  of  the  most  considerable 
Biblical  scholars  in  our  own  country,  and  the 
Ecclectic  Eeview  has  produced  a  sj)ecimen  on  this 
subject,  which  shows  their  entire  approbation  of 
such  attempts.  Kow,  notwithstanding  the  celebrity 
of  some  of  the  writers  who  have  occupied  their 
ingenuity  on  this  subject,  and  the  general  approba- 
tion of  their  labor,  I  will  be  as  rash  as  Job's  three 
friends,  and  pronounce  with  the  fullest  confidence, 
that  the  utmost  exertions  of  talent  can  never  pro- 
duce any  thing  but  a  figment  in  this  matter ;  and 
farther,  that  though  the  truth  was  exactly  known, 
it  would  be  of  no  value  for  the  alleged  purpose.  It 
is  indeed  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of 
complete  inspiration,  that  the  writers  of  the  Gos- 
pels should  have   taken   much  of  their  accounts 


THE   SCFJPTUKES.  99 

from  externa]  fcources.  Inspiration  applies  to  tliem 
in  copying  a  genealogical  title,  receiving  an  account 
of  a  fact  from  an  eye  witness,  copying  nninspired 
records,  or  making  extracts  from  them,  as  well  as 
in  tlie  most  important  communications  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  to  pretend,  at  this  distance  of  time,  to 
discover  and  ascertain  the  different  external  sources 
fi-om  which  each  of  the  Evangelists  draw  their  ma- 
terials, is  an  attempt  that  sober  good  sense  never 
will  make,  l^o  historical  question  can  ever  be 
settled  by  theory.  The  utmost  that  ingenuity  can 
reach  is  probability,  or  rather  plausibility.  A 
thing  may  have  been  so,  as  is  alleged ;  but  it  may 
not  have  been  so,  and  nothing  but  childish  credu- 
lity will  ever  receive  as  historical  truth,  the  most 
harmonious  tales  of  fiction. 

K  this  is  a  just  observation,  how  deplorable  is  it 
that  the  young  Biblical  student  should  have  his 
talents  so  misdirected  as  they  are  likely  t-o  be,  by 
the  remarks  in  the  foliov,dng  extract  from  the 
Ecclectic  Review  ? 

"The  subject  to  vdiich  this  volmne  (Schleier- 
macher's  Essay)  relates,  is  the  origination  of  the 
Gospels,'  particularly  the  first  three.  The  Bishop  of 
Peterborough's  Dissertation,  annexed  to  his  Trans- 
lation of  Michaelis'  Litroduction,  in  ISOl,  first 
brought  the  subject  fully  before  the  minds  of 
English  readers.  The  early  Protestant  commenta- 
tors and   divines,  with  the  exception  of  Grotius, 


100  IXSriKATIOX    OF 

had  scarcely  adverted  to  the  subject,  or  had  con- 
tented themselves  with  occasional  and  brief  notices, 
such  as  a  slisrht  examination  must  have  ascertained 
to  be  quite  unsatisfactory.  Towards  the  beginning 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  Le  Clerc,  Mill,  and 
Wetstem,  proposed  their  opinions  on  this  question ; 
and  in  a  following  period  it  was  investigated  with 
great  assiduity  by  Michaelis  and  many  others  of 
the  German  critics,  and  in  om'  own  country  chiefly 
by  the  late  Dr.  Henry  Owen.  But  it  is  dm-ing  the 
last  forty  years  that  the  most  laborious  diligence 
has  been  employed  upon  it,  by  the  late  estimable 
Dr.  ^Niemeyer,  by  Eichhorn,  and  by  many  others 
of  the  German  Bible  scholars."  Such  is  the  history 
of  this  foolish  and  untaught  question.  The  laborious 
trifling  of  misemployed  learning  and  mgenuity 
is  here  exhibited  with  an  approbation  that  must 
give  a  wrong  du-ection  to  the  talents  of  young  Bib- 
lical students,  as  far  as  it  has  any  influence  on  the 
Christian  public.  In  what  immediately  follows, 
w^e  have  the  phenomena  and  the  theory  founded 
on  them.  "  "Whoever  reads  a  Greek  Harmony  of 
the  Gospels,  must  be  struck  with  these  facts  :  that 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  frequently  recite  the 
same  facts,  but  particularly  speeches  of  our  Lord, 
in  the  same  words ;  that  often  there  is  such  a  vari- 
ation of  the  words,  but  conservation  of  the  sense, 
as  usually  takes  place  when  two  persons  translate 
into  one  language  a  passage  from  a  foreign  book ; 


TnE   SCRIPTURES.  101 

that  still  more  instances  occnr,  in  wliicli  the  varia- 
tion is  much  less  than  must  necessarily  be  in  the 
case  just  supposed,  while  yet  the  conformity  is  not 
perfect,  as  in  the  first  class  of  instances ;  that  in 
some  cases  the  differences  are  very  considerable, 
referring  to  words  spoken,  actions  performed,  and 
the  consecution  of  events ;  and  that  in  other  cases 
the  variations  are  such  as  appear  irreconcilable  by 
any  method  that  ingenuity  can  devise,  so*  that  we 
are  driven  to  the  conclusion,  that  som^e  of  the 
Evangelists  have  erred  in  the  dates  of  events,  the 
combination  of  material,  and  other  minute  circum- 
stances, merely  of  an  outward  and  mechanical 
kind,  and  Vv^hich  have  no  effect  whatever  on  the 
certainty  of  their  narrative,  or  its  grand  use  for 
religious  instruction." 

Here  we  have  without  disguise  the  appalling 
assertion  that  there  are  various  errors  in  the  Evan- 
gelical histories.  It  is  not  my  business  to  contro- 
vert this  infidel  statement,  else  I  might  allege  that 
ingenuity  might  yet  do  what  it  has  never  done,  and 
that  all  former  failures  are  no  certain  proof  that 
the  thing  is  imjDracticable.  Tliese  sages  are  not  to 
take  it  for  granted,  that  human  ingenuity  can 
never  advance  beyond  their  attainments,  or  even 
the  advance  of  all  former  times.  I  might  allege 
reconciliation  might  be  possible,  though  human 
ingenuity  should  never  effect  it,  and  that  a  proper 
sense  of  human  weakness,  as  well  as  a  reverence  for 


102  ESrSPIEATION   OF 

tlie  word  of  God,  ought  to  have  preycnted  this 
blasphemous  charge.  Pray,  gentlemen  reviewers, 
might  not  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels  be  possible, 
though  your  exquisite  sagacity  has  not  found  it  ?  I 
might  allege  also,  that  in  effecting  a  harmony  every 
possible  supposition  is  perfectly  allowable,  and  any 
thing  that  could  possibly  reconcile  the  accounts  may 
be  taken  for  granted.  Evr-  ^  "  !\o  accounts  appa- 
rently of*  the  same  transaction  dAjponld  be  palpably 
irreconcilable,  there  is  still  a  possibility  that  it  is 
not  the  same.  A  sentiment  uttered  on  one  tK?ca- 
sion  may  have  been  uttered  on  another  with  some 
variety,  and  that  which  appears  to  be  the  same 
miracle  variously  related,  may  in  reality  have  been 
two.  But  I  will  allege  nothino^  like  this.  I  will 
take  it  for  granted  that  the  blasphemous  charge  of 
these  Evangelical  critics  is  true.  Of  what  use  on 
this  supposition,  are  speculations  on  the  origination 
of  the  Gospels?  Can  the  result  of  these  specula- 
tions produce  a  harmony  where  there  is  acloiow- 
ledged  contradiction?  They  may  account  for 
variety,  but  can  they  excuse  error  ?  If  the  Evan- 
gelists have  erred,  it  does  not  free  them  from  that 
error,  to  discover  its  source.  After  all  the  specula- 
tions of  these  theorists,  the  error,  with  all  its  evils, 
still  remains.  But  these  errors,  it  seems,  are  of 
small  moment.  They  are  merely  "outward  and 
mechanical."  But  how  errors  of  dates  and  fiilse 
combinations  of  fact,  can  be  called  the  outward  and 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  103 

mechanical  errors  of  history^  is  what  I  cannot 
understand.  Faults  of  this  kind  do  not  belong  to 
inartificial  composition.  Nor  is  it  true  that  errors 
of  this  description  have  no  effect  on  the  certainty 
of  the  narrative.  It  is  true  indeed,  that  the  substance 
of  a  narrative  may  be  true,  while  there  is  a  mistake 
in  the  date ;  and  two  facts  may  be  true,  while  they 
are  erroneously  combined;  but  error  in  any  of 
these  respects  brings  the  w^hole  Bible  into  suspicion ; 
and  when  the  whole  claims  the  authority  of  inspi- 
ration, a  false  date  is  as  bad  as  a  false  narrative. 
When  we  read,  "AH  Scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God,"  we  cannot  admit  that  God  has 
committed  an  error  in  the  date,  more  than  in  the 
transactions.  This  passage  of  Scripture  demands 
truth  in  the  dates  as  well  as  in  the  substance  of  the 
narratives.  If  the  Scriptm-es  assert  inspiration 
equally  with  respect  to  every  part  of  them,  an  error 
of  any  kind,  were  it  established  against  them,  would 
overturn  their  authority. 

"  There  are,  indeed,"  says  the  reviewers,  "  some 
persons  who  suppose  that  all  and  singular  the 
sentences  and  words,  in  tjie  very  order  in  which 
they  stand  through  the  whole  of  the  Gospel  records, 
were  literally  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  Extra- 
vagant fanatics !  What  could  lead  them  to  so  wild 
a  conceit !  What  absurdity  to  suppose  that  the 
words  and  sentences  of  a  book,  aye,  all  and  singu- 
lar the  words  and  sentences^  in  the  verv  order  hi 


104  IXSPIEATION   OF 

which  they  stand,  shall  be  the  very  words  and  sen- 
tences and  arrangement  of  the  author  of  snch  book ! 
What  then,  gentlemen,  is  your  theory  on  this  sub- 
ject? Will  you  show  us  how  any  piece  of  comj)0- 
sition  can  be  ascribed  to  an  author,  when  the  words, 
sentences  and  collocation  are  not  his  own?  Are 
the  words,  sentences  and  arrangement,  no  parts  of 
the  writings  to  which  they  belong?  I  am  one  of 
those  fantastic  people  who  believe  that  a  ^vi-iting 
contains  all  the  words,  sentences  and  arrangement, 
that  are  fomid  in  it ;  and  therefore  cannot  see  how 
all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration,  if  any  w^ord 
originally  in  the  Scripture  was  uninspii'ed.  I  am 
so  old  fashioned  as  to  believe,  that  if  all  Scripture 
is  inspired,  there  is  no  Scripture  wdiich  is  uninspired, 
for  I  have  not  yet  learned  to  believe  both  sides  of  a 
contradiction. 

But  this  is  not  the  most  extravagant  thing  that 
these  grave  reviewers  charge  on  their  opponents 
on  the  question  of  inspiration.  They  add,  "and 
that  the  Evangelists  had  no  other  part  to  perform 
than  that  of  mechanical  hand-writers."  Stop  a  little 
gentlemen.  Where  did  you  find  this  ?  In  whose 
wi'itings  can  you  verify  this  charge  ?  I  will  not  say 
that  you  never  met  with  it,  for  in  London,  that 
hotbed  of  fanaticism,  there  may  be  paroxisms  of 
religious  phrenzy  beyond  the  cold  conception  of  mere 
provincials.  But  I  w^ill  say,  since  I  beo-an  to  exam- 
me  this  subject.  I  have  not  met  it.     I  never  met  an 


THE    SCETPTrRES.  105 

individual  wlio  looked  upon  the  Evangelists  as 
merely  meclianical  hand-writers.  It  is  nniversallj 
admitted,  that  the  inspired  writers  were  rational 
organs  throngh  which  the  Holy  Spirit  communica- 
ted his  mind,  though  every  word  ^vritten  by  them 
in  the  Scriptures  was  from  God.  There  is  nothing 
irreconcilable  in  the  two  parte  of  this  statement. 
God  can  surely  speak  His  words  through  man,  in 
such  a  way  that  the  words  and  thoughts  sliall  he 
the  words  and  thoughts  of  both.  If,  hov^^ever,  the 
reviewers  make  this  assertion  with  respect  to  those 
who  in  the  late  controversy  have  held  the  doctrine 
of  verbal  inspnation,  the  charge  is  utterly  false. 
And  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  this  is  the 
allusion.  For  they  add,  "  those  persons,  therefore, 
do  not  shrink  from  maintaining  that  the  variations, 
equally  with  the  coincidences,  even  those  which  ap- 
parently are  the  most  insusceptible  of  being  bent 
to  reconciliation,  all  proceeded  from  one  and  the 
same  source,  the  verbal  prescription  of  the  Spirit 
of  truth."  I  have  distinctly  a^vowed  the  sentiment 
here  alluded  to ;  and  I  do  not  shrink  from  defending 
any  thing  I  have  advanced  on  the  subject.  I  have 
said,  that  any  variety  that  is  warrantable  in  the 
different  rehearsals  of  the  same  fact  by  an  lionest 
witness  in  the  things  of  man,  is  equally  warranta- 
ble in  the  different  relations  of  the  same  fact  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  a  fanatical  misconception  of 
the  nature  of  truth  and  falsehood,  to  suppose  that 


106  IXSPIEATIOX   OF 

what  is  consistent  witli  veracity  in  the  Langnage  of 
man,  would  be  inconsistent  with  it  in  the  language 
of  God.  To  rej^eat  a  narrative  with  the  exactness 
of  a  message  in  Homer's  heralds,  is  not  required 
by  truth  in  the  language  of  either  God  or  man. 
And  if  there  are  any  discrepancies  in  the  accounts 
of  the  Evangelists,  which  do  not  come  under  the 
protection  of  this  shield,  but  are  real  errors,  I 
maintain  that  they  overturn  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  altogether,  and  are  inconsistent  with  the 
declaration  that  "all  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspi- 
ration of  God." 

"The  chief  questions  are,"  say  the  reviewers, 
"did  one  or  two  of  the  fii-st  three  Evangelists 
transcribe  from  the  other  ?  Or  did  they  all  make 
use  of  some  one  conjmon  document,  taking  from  it 
more  or  less  of  their  respective  matter  ?  Or  had 
they  a  vai'iety  of  such  common  documents  ?  Tlie 
affirmative  of  each  of  these  positions  has  been  main- 
tained by  different  wi-iters ;  and  each  has  attempted 
to  show  the  impossibility  of  any  theory  being  true 
except  his  own."  IlTow,  if  there  is  an  irreconcili- 
ble  difference  between  the  accounts  of  the  Evange- 
lists on  any  point,  how  can  it  harmonize  them  to 
know  the  sources  from  which  each  took  his  matter  ? 
Do  not  the  reviews  assert,  that  some  of  the  accounts 
are  erroneous  ?  Of  what  avail  then  is  it  to  point 
out  the  source  of  the  error,  even  were  this  possible  ? 
Can  this  excuse  falsehood,  or  convert  falsehood  into 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  107 

triitli  ?  If  two  English  historians  differ  in  tlie  date 
of  any  event,  does  it  reconcile  tJiem  to  point  out 
the  different  authorities  which  they  have  followed  ? 
So  far  then  from  these  being  the  chief  questions  on 
this  subject,  they  are  not  questions  that  relate  to  the 
subject  at  all.  And  as  they  are  questions  that  are 
not  answered  by  the  Scriptures,  they  are  questions 
that  no  man  of  a  sound  mind  would  ever  ask.  They 
are  questions  that  never  can  be  answered  but  by 
conjecture ;  and  on  such  answers  a  wise  m^an  will 
not  build  any  part  of  his  faith  on  any  subject.  Tliey 
are  questions  perfectly  similar  to  those  which  have 
inquired  after  the  name  and  the  kindred  of  the 
Witch  of  Ender,  and  the  names  of  those  two  men 
who  accompanied  Saul  when  he  went  to  consult 
her.  Who  can  tell  whether  her  name  was  Zepha- 
niah,  or  in  what  respect  vrould  it  profit  us  to  know 
this '?  Is  it  possible  to  determine  whether  or  not 
she  was  the  mother  of  Abner?  Or  would  the 
settling  of  this  question  enrich  our  knowledge? 
Whetlier  Abner  and  Amasa  were  the  two  men  that 
accomj)anied  Saul  on  his  errand,  cannot  now  be 
known;  and  could  it  be  Imown,  would  be  of  no 
advantage. 

Such  questions  did  much  occupy  the  Jewish 
doctors,  and  much  of  the  information  which  they 
communicated  in  their  commentaries  is  of  this  sort. 
It  is  lamentable  to  find  the  censors  of  the  press,  the 
professed  defenders  of   evangelical  sentiments   in 


108  IXSriRATION    OF 

England  in  the  nineteenth  century,  approving  of  a 
species  of  inquiry  equally  vain,  equally  useless. 
To  find  out  the  sources  of  the  Gospels  by  theories 
founded  on  suppositions,  is  as  idle  as  to  attempt  the 
discovery  of  the  sources  of  the  WAq  or  the  Is"iger 
in  the  same  manner. 

That  my  readers  may  be  enabled  to  judge  with 
more  advantage  with  respect  to  these  competent 
theories,  I  shall  present  them  with  a  specimen  that 
these  reviewers  have  themselves  exhibited  with 
approbation.  "  Perhaps  we  shall  be  forgiven," 
they  say,  "  if  we  here  borrow  a  few  paragraphs 
from  lectures  on  this  subject,  which  have  been  de- 
livered more  than  twenty  years  ago,  in  one  of  the 
Dissenting  Colleges  near  the  metropolis." 

"  Wherever  the  Apostles  went  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, we  find  them  attentive  to  two  great  objects ; 
the  first,  the  conversion  of  men  to  the  faith  and 
obedience  of  their  Kedeemer ;  the  second,  the  in- 
struction and  edification  of  those  who  had  been 
already  converted. 

'•  In  discharging  the  duties  of  the  second  class, 
the  first  Cliristian  teachers  must  have  experienced 
such  a  state  of  things  as  I  shall  now  take  the  liberty 
of  supposing.  The  new  converts  could  not  but  feel 
themselves  deeply  interested  to  inquire  for  all  attain- 
able information  relative  to  the  character,  conduct, 
miracles,  and  discourses  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  With 
such  requests,  the  apostolic  instructors  would  un- 


THE  SCrjPTURES.  100 

doubtedly  be  disposed  to  comply,  to  the  utmost  of 
their  power  and  opportunity.  We  have  in  Acts 
XX,  35,  a  reference  to  information  of  this  kind,  but 
which  is  not  recorded  by  any  one  of  the  Evan- 
gelists. 

'•  The  relations  thus  given  by  the  Apostles,  would 
be  of  various  length,  and  would  comprehend  one 
or  more  anecdotes  or  discourses ;  as  the  judgment 
of  the  relaters,  under  the  inspiring  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  dictated  the  propriety  of  the  selection, 
in  application  to  the  circumstances  of  those  for 
whose  benefit  it  was  imparted. 

"  These  relations  would  be  justly  esteemed  of  the 
highest  value,  on  account  of  the  important  and 
interesting  nature  of  the  matter,  and  on  account  of 
the  promised  infiuence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  bring- 
to  the  recollection  of  the  disciples  '  all  things  what- 
soever Jesus  had  said  unto  them.' 

"Within  the  immediate  confines  of  Judea,  the 
Apostles  would  usually  deliver  their  discourses  in 
Syro-Chaldaic,  the  language  of  the  country ;  but  in 
other  places  they  commonly  sj)oke  the  Alexandrian 
Greek. 

"  Though  it  is  not  probable  that  any  of  the  Apos- 
tles, during  the  first  few  years  of  their  laborious 
duties,  committed  to  wi^iting  any  large  accounts,  they 
might,  upon  request,  wi'ite  down  such  or  such  a  par- 
ticular relation  or  discourse  of  their  divine  Master. 
Or,  perhaps  more   probably,   some   one   of  their 


110  INSPIKATTON   OF 

hearers  wrote  from  their  mouths  those  relations. 
In  each  of  their  various  audiences  of  converts,  it 
may  surely  be  presumed  that  one  person,  at  least, 
was  competent  to  j^erform  this  service  for  himself 
and  his  comj)anions  in  the  faith. 

"  It  is  further  a  matter  of  reasonable  presump- 
tion, that  such  memorials,  records,  fragments,  or 
whatever  we  may  call  them,  would  be  presented 
by  the  wi-iter  to  the  Apostle  from  whose  oral  in- 
struction they  had  been  derived,  with  a  request  for 
revision  and  correction.  Tims,  these  detached  por- 
tions of  narrative,  conversation,  or  continued  dis- 
course, would  obtain,  most  justly  the  sanction  of 
Apostolic  authority,  and  would  be  preserved,  read, 
circulated,  copied,  and  reverenced  accordingly. 

"  To  the  Evan£>:elists  Mark  and  Luke,  such  fraoc- 
ments  would  be  of  immense  value.  It  may  be 
presumed,  that  they  diligently  collected  them,  that 
they  were  able  fully  to  appreciate  their  claims  to 
authenticity,  and  that  they  introduced  those  which 
they  knew  to  be  of  indubitable  authority  into  their 
respective  narratives;  and  some  of  them  might, 
with  equally  good  reason,  be  inserted  by  Matthew 
in  his  original  Syro-Chaldaic  Gospel.  Luke  adverts, 
in  plain  terms,  to  a  plurality  of  sources  from  which 
he  had  deduced  his  information,  when  he  says,  that 
'  those  who  from  the  beginning  had  been  eye  wit- 
nesses and  attendants  of  the  word,  had  delivered 
their  declarations ;  and  that  he  himself  '  had  dili- 


TIIE    SCRIPTURES.  Ill 

gently  traced  up  all  from  tlie  first.'  "When  the 
translator  of  Matthew's  Gospel  into  Greek,  whether 
that  was  himself  or  any  other  person,  fomid  any  of 
these  fragments  w^hich  corresponded  wdth  passages 
in  his  original,  he  would  act  properly  hy  availing 
himself  of  them,  and  transcribing  them  into  his 
version.  This  conjecture  applies,  of  course,  to  the 
Greek  fragments,  which  may  be  presumed  to  have 
been  the  more  numerous  of  the  two  classes. 

''  The  inference  from  these  positions  is,  that 
where  v/e  find  the  continued  verbal  agreements  in 
the  three  or  in  two  of  these  sacred  writers,  we  are 
reading  an  authentic  Greek  fragment,  which  each 
possessed  and  faithfully  inserted  in  his  work ;  but 
that,  where  we  find  the  coincidences  which  are 
not  strictly  verbal,  but  lie  in  the  collocation  of  sen- 
tences and  members  of  sentences,  each  of  the 
writers  had  before  him  a  copy  of  the  same  Syro- 
Chaldaic  fragment,  and  translated  it  into  Greek  for 
his  own  purpose." 

ISTov/  what  is  this  but  a  theological  novel,  as  much 
the  Vv- ork  of  invention  as  Waverley  ?  There  is  no 
more  reason  to  believe  that  all  these  suj)positions 
were  actually  realized,  than  that  Sir  Walter  Scott 
gives  an  authentic  history  of  the  attempt  of  Prince 
Charles  Edward.  Is  it  possible  that  a  wa-iter  can 
be  so  frantic  as  to  call  on  his  readers  to  receive 
conjectures  as  facts  ?  Must  every  link  of  a  chain  of 
supposition  be  admitted  as  historical    evidence  ? 


112  IXSPIE.ATTON    OF 

Tlie  novels  of  Sii*  Walter  Scott  do  not  demand  our 
faith  though  they  may  possess  much  historical 
truth ;  and  they  give  the  knowledge  of  life,  man- 
ners, and  of  many  things  that  may  be  profitable ; 
but  a  thousand  volumes  of  such  theological  ro- 
mances would  not  enrich  a  reader  with  a  single 
idea.  Eeasonings,  founded^  on  conjecture  with 
respect  to  the  things  of  God,  pervert  the  mind 
from  the  true  2>^ii'snit  and  the  true  sources  of 
knowledge.  How  lamentable  to  find  a  professor 
in  a  theological  chair,  in  a  seminary  professedly 
evangelical,  amusing  his  students  with  reveries 
about  the  origination  of  the  Gospels,  instead  of  an 
able  exposition  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible !  If 
this  is  the  way  in  which  the  English  Dissenters  arc 
now  taught  in  their  Colleges,  it  will  not  be  surpris- 
ing if,  in  process  of  time,  their  professors  shall 
amuse  the  students  by  mimicking  the  trick  of  the 
Tesurrection  of  Jesus.  Whatever  ingenuity  a  man 
may  discover  in  devising  and  harmonizing  such 
theories,  a  sound  mind  he  cannot  possess,  and  none 
but  fanatics  can  receive  edification. 

But  granting  for  a  moment  that  all  these  con- 
jectures were  matter  of  fact,  of  what  avail  would 
this  theory  be  for  harmonising  the  Evangelists? 
Would  it  convert  the  supposed  errors  in  the  Gospel 
into  truth  ?  Would  it  show  that  inspiration  might 
communicate  a  falsehood?  "Upon  this  general 
basis,"  say   the  reviewers,  "we  understand  that 


THE    SCRIPTURES.  113 

the  Professor  wliose  words  vre  liaye  borro^ved, 
conceives  that  both  the  agreements  and  the  disa- 
greements, and  all  the  other  phenomena  of  the 
case  may  be  accoimted  for,  so  far  as  it  is  in  our 
power  to  account  for  them."  Tliis  l)asis  !  A  chain 
Ox  suppositions !  This  is  a  basis  without  a  base. 
This  is  truly  like  the  Lidian  philosopher,  who 
sup23orted  the  world  on  the  back  of  an  elephant, 
and  the  elephant  on  the  back  of  a  huge  tortoise. 
This  theory  might,  indeed,  show  the  reason  of  the 
coincidences,  and  the  reason  of  the  disagreements. 
But  does  this  harmonise  the  discrepancies  ?  Does 
this  show  that  all  Scripture  may  be  given  by 
inspiration,  while  the  Scriptures  abound  in  errors  ? 
To  find  out  the  external  sources  of  the  Gospels, 
even  were  it  now  possible,  would  be  nothing  but 
a  matter  of  mere  curiosity.  The  man  who  would 
give  two  hundred  pounds  for  a  Queen  Ann's 
farthing,  might  value  such  information.  But  any 
man  of  a  well  regulated  mind  would  utterly  under- 
value such  a  discovery.  Dr.  Schleiermacher's 
theory,  the  reviewers  inform  us,  is  essentially  the 
same  with  that  of  the  English  Dissenting  Professor ; 
but  the  intrepidity  of  our  critics  begin  to  fail  them, 
when  the  German  Ideologist  attempts  to  harmonise 
Matthew  and  Luke,  by  turning  some  parts  of  the 
accounts  into  allegories  and  fables.  "  But  when," 
say  they,  "to  accomplish  the  long-felt  desideratum 
of  harmonising  this  narrative  (of  Luke)  witli  that 


114:  INSPIRATION    OF 

in  Matliev/  i.  12— ii.  23,  he  brings  out  tlie  supposi- 
tion that  certain  parts  in  the  nm^rative  of  each 
Evangelist  are  jpoetkal  allegories^  we  feel  the 
ground  shake  nncler  oiu*  feet."  But  had  the 
reriewers  been  as  well  acquainted  with  the  country 
as  their  profession  demanded,  they  would  have  left 
their  guide  on  the  edge  of  the  quagmire,  instead  of 
accompanying  him  to  the  very  gulph  which  now 
affrights  them.  They  should  not  have  entered  the 
very  margin  of  the  regions  of  conjecture  on  a  theo- 
logical subject.  And  after  all,  are  not  the  fears  of 
the  reviewers  either  aifection,  or  cowardice  ?  Is  it 
worse  in  the  German  Ideologist,  to  charge  a  false- 
hood on  the  Bible  under  the  decent  veil  of  allegory 
or  instructive  fable,  than  in  the  reviewers  to  charge 
in  direct  terms,  various  errors  on  the  accounts  of 
the  Evangelists  ?  Tliese  young  Geological  recruits, 
who  have  nov,"  shown  themselves  so  nervous  at  the 
first  fire,  will  forget  their  fears,  it  is  to  be  expected, 
during  the  remainder  of  the  engagement.  If  they 
have  now  coura2:e  to  char<2:e  the  book  of  God  with 
errors  in  dates  and  combination  of  facts,  the  N"eo- 
logians  have  no  reason  to  despair,  that  they  will 
come  in  time  to  pronounce,  without  faltering, 
"  patches  of  parable  and  instructive  fable." 

On  the  whole  it  is  evident  that  the  German 
Xeologians  have  had  their  influence  even  on  the 
evangelical  press  of  England ;  and  that  with  all  the 
horror  ex]-)ressed  ^vith  respect  to  their  most  extra- 


THE  scmpiTEES.  lis 


vao-ant  dogmas,  tliere  is  an  attempt  to  meet  tlicm, 
and  a  desire  to  fraternize,  as  far  as  possible,  m 
their  specnlations.  The  tone  of  tliis  Review  mdi- 
cat^^s  much  more  comphaisance  towards  the  errors 
of  learned  ingenuity,  than  of  zeal  for  the  honor  of 
the  word  of  God.  A  reviewer  possessmg  an  apos- 
tolic spirit,  must  have  stamped  every  part  of  Dr. 
Schleiermachers'  work  with  his  strongest  repro- 
bation. 


REMARKS* 

ON 

DR.   PYE   smith's   TIIEOKY   OF   IXSPIEATION. 


De.  Smith's  account  of  inspiration  appears  to  me 
to  proceed  on  principles  at  variance  with  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  Biblical  interpretation.  It  founds 
on  theory,  and  supports  itself  not  by  the  declarations 
of  the  divine  word  itself,  but  by  the  supposition  of 
difficulties  and  views  of  necessity.  Whatever  dis- 
tance there  may  be  between  the  inspiration  allowed 
by  Dr.  Haffiier,  and  that  contended  for  by  this  wri- 
ter, they  both  build  on  the  same  objectional  founda- 
tion, though  the  religious  sentiments  of  the  latter 
permit  him  to  ascribe  a  greater  degree  of  divine 
assistance.  "What  is  the  method  that  just  criticism 
would  adopt  in  ascertaining  the  nature  and  extent 
of  inspiration  ?  Undoubtedly  it  is  by  arguing,  what 
saith  the  Scriptures  ?  Whether  the  Scriptures  are 
insi^ired  at  all,  and  what  is  the  extent  of  that  inspi- 

*  These  remarks  were  originally  subjoined  to  a  Keview  of  tho 
Rev.  Dr.  J.  Pye  Smith's  Defence  of  Dr.  Haffiier  of  Strasburg's  Neo- 
logical  Preface  to  the  Bible.  '  The  latter  is  in  this  edition  omitted, 
as  being  unconnected  with  the  subject  of  inspiration. 


118  mSPIKATION   OF 

ration,  can  be  learned  from  no  otlier  source.  I  turn 
then  to  2  Timothy,  iii,  16,  and  it  immediately  gives 
me  full  and  perfectly  satisfactory  information.  It 
declares,  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God."  Here  plenary  inspiration  is  expressly 
asserted ;  for  what  is  a  loriting  but  loords  written  f 
The  thoughts  and  sentiments  are  the  meaning  of  the 
words.  To  say  that  a  writing  is  inspired  while  the 
words  are  uninspired  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
It  is  not  said  that  the  doctrines  of  Scripture,  or  the 
thoughts  and  sentiments  of  Scripture,  but  that  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  are  given  by  the  inspiration 
of  God.  It  is  of  the  words  as  containing  the  mean- 
ing, and  not  of  the  meaning  as  distinguished  from 
the  words,  that  inspiration  is  directly  and  expressly 
asserted.  For  my  o^va  complete  satisfaction,  I  re- 
quire not  an  additional  particle  of  evidence.  But 
if,  to  silence  the  captiousness  of  error,  I  proceed  to 
examine  what  additional  light  the  Scriptm-es  afford, 
I  am  altogether  overwhelmed  with  the  mass  of  evi- 
dence brought  to  bear  on  the  subject.  Tliis  may  be 
seen  fidly  exhibited  in  Mi*.  Haldane's  Treatise  on 
the  Authenticity  and  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tm*es.  As  I  am  not  now  arguing  the  point,  but  onl}^ 
showing  the  legitimate  mode  of  procedure,  in  every 
question  with  respect  to  what  is  taught  in  Scrip- 
ture, I  decline  giving  even  an  epitome  of  that 
evidence.  I  shaU  merely  suggest  one  or  two  things 
that  may  be  expressed  in  a  few  words.    Some  things 


THE   SCEIPTURES.  119 

in  Scripture  must  necassarily  have  been  ins^^ircd  in 
words,  as  well  as  thouglits.  All  prophecies  not 
understood  by  the  Prophets  must  have  had  such 
an  inspiration.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  key  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  inspiration.  If  any  other  part 
of  the  Scriptures  are  ascribed  to  a  lower  degree  of 
inspiration,  we  are  to  believe  it ;  but  without  this, 
we  are  to  look  on  all  as  inspired  to  the  same  extent, 
as  the  same  inspiration  is  equally  asserted  of  all. 
That  there  are  diiferent  degrees  of  inspiration,  is 
not  an  assertion  of  the  Scripture  themselves,  but  an 
arbitrary  theory  of  man.  "We  iind  again,  that  the 
Apostles,  on  the  prospect  of  appearing  before  kings 
and  governors,  were  directed  by  their  Master  not 
to  think  previously  on  what  they  were  to  say,  as 
they  would  be  supplied  with  a  defence  m  the  mo- 
ment of  trial :  "  It  is  not  you  that  speak,  but  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Now,  if  verbal  inspiration  was  com- 
municated on  such  occasions^,  surely  it  would  not 
be  withheld  from  the  Scriptures,  which  are  to  abide 
to  the  end  of  the  world. 

But  instead  of  proceeding  in  this  way,  to  inquu-e 
of  the  Scri23tures  the  nature  and  extent  of  their 
inspiration.  Dr.  S.  as  if  they  could  not  settle  the 
question,  invents  a  theory,  and  forms  an  iuspiratiou, 
varying  in  extent,  agreeably  to  supposed  exigencies, 
without  even  alleging  the  color  of  Scriptural  autho- 
rity. A  plenary  verbalr  inspiration  is  unneGessary^ — ■ 
is  attended  with  difficulties.^ — detracts  frwti  the  au- 


120  IJs^SPIEATIOX   OF 

thm'ity  of  translation^ — gims  weight  to  objections 
from  various  readings^ — therefore^  there  is  not  a 
'plenarij  insjmxdion.  Kow,  admitting  all  the  pre- 
mises, all  of  which  I  denj,  I  do  not  admit  the 
conclusion.  Hmnan  views  of  what  is  unneces- 
sary,— the  existence  of  difficulties, — the  degree  of 
authority  due  to  translations, — and  the  weight  of 
objections  from  various  readings,  are  not  a  para- 
mount reason  to  set  aside  the  evidence  of  Scripture 
doctrhie ;  but  I  shall  examine  his  four  objections 
separately. 

"The  h}^3othesis,"  says  Dr.  Smith,  "that,  in 
every  case,  (for  in  some  it  was  evidently  necessary,) 
the  identical  words  were  infused  into  the  mind  of 
the  inspired  wiiter,  appears  to  me  untenable,  for 
these  reasons :" — Sinith''s  Scrij^ture  Testimony  to 
the  Messiah^  vol.  1.  p.  62. 

This  is  not  an  hypothesis.  Dr.  Smith ;  it  is  the 
express  assertion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  K  Dr.  S. 
could  show  that  the  words,  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  do  not 
imply  verbal  inspiration,  he  would  show  that  our 
interpretation  of  that  passage  is  wrong;  not  that 
om-  hj^Dothesis  is  untenable.  AVe  form  no  hopothe- 
sis  on  the  subject — ■  we  deny  hypothesis  —  we  ab- 
hor hypothesis,  with  respect  to  every  truth  that  can 
be  known  only  by  the  revelation  of  God. 

"It  is  an  unnecessary  supposition;  for  the 
divine  influence  on  the  mind  of  the  inspired  wi'iter 
would  as  certainly  guide  the  rational  faculty  of 


THE   SCRirTURES.  121 

expression  to  tlie  adoption  of  tlie  lest  and  onost 
suitahle  terms  and  phrases,  as  if  the  words  were 
dictated  to  a  mere  amannensis." 

I  have  never  met  a  writer  who  betrays  greater 
indistinctness  in  his  conceptions  than  this  author. 
I  thonght  the  question  was,  whether  the  very  words^ 
all  the  words  originally  written  in  the  Scriptures, 
were  inspired,  as  well  as  the  thoughts.  Here  the 
question  is  shifted,  and  the  matter  in  doubt  is  sup- 
posed to  be,  whether  the  words  of  Scripture  were 
infused  by  the  Spirit,  or  the  inspired  writers  were 
certainly  guided  to  the  adoption  of  them.  Now,  if 
there  is  any  difference  between  being  guided  to  use 
a  word  and  having  that  word  infused  into  the  mind, 
I  do  not  think  that  that  difference  will  be  of  any 
avail  to  Dr.  S.'s  theory.  If  the  divine  influence  on 
the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer  has  certainly  guided 
the  rational  faculty  of  expression  to  the  adoption 
of  the  best  and  most  suitable  terms  and  phrases, 
then  the  terms  and  phrases  of  Scripture  are  all 
given  by  God.  Is  this  any  thing  akin  to  the  theory 
that  in  some  things  the  words  are  left  to  the  writers 
themselves,  or  that  the  inspiration  is  in  the  thoughts 
rather  than  the  words  ?  The  theory  used  in  prac- 
tice, and  the  theory  vindicated,  are  quite  different. 
The  former  is  designed  to  afford  some  relief  from 
the  supposed  consequences  of  plenary  verbal  inspi- 
ration ;  the  latter,  if  it  is  not  really  such,  is  exposed 
to  all  its  objections.     The  guiding  with  certainty  to 


122  IXSPIKATION   OF 

tlie  use  of  a  term,  secures  it  as  firmly  as  infusion. 
"What  is  guiding  to  tlie  use  of  a  word,  but  inspira- 
tion? 

By  tlie  assertion  that  such  a  mode  of  inspiration 
is  mmecessary,  the  author's  scheme  requires,  not 
merely  that  certain  guidance  will  supply  the  place 
of  infxLsian^  but  that  some  things  do  not  require 
verbal  inspiration  at  all.  While  the  thoughts  and 
sentiments  are  communicated  by  the  Sph'it,  the 
wi'iters  ma.y  clothe  them  with  expression.  Kow, 
complete  inspii*ation  is  necessary  as  the  ultimate 
resom'ce  in  securing  us  that  we  have  the  mind  of 
the  Spirit.  We  may  indeed  have  an  inspired 
thought  in  uninspired  words^  as  in  translations  of 
the  Scriptm-es;  but  that  we  have  the  inspired 
thought,  cannot  be  known  on  the  highest  evidence, 
but  by  knowing  the  inspked  words.  How  can  a 
thought  be  known,  but  by  the  words  that  express 
it  ?  And  how  can  we  know  that  the  words  express 
the  thoughts  of  the  author,  if  they  are  not  the 
words  of  the  author?  Had  the  inspired  writers 
been  left  to  themselves,  as  to  the  choice  of  words 
in  any  part  of  their  writings,  they  might  have  made 
a  bad  choice,  and  inadequately  or  erroneously  repre- 
sented the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  The  best  writer 
that  ever  moved  a  quill,  may  often  fail  in  express- 
ing his  o^vn  sentiments.  Instances  might  be  given 
in  which  the  most  learned  writers  misstate  their 
own  meaning,  and  sometimes  convey  no  meaning 


THE  SCRirTURES,  123 

at  all.  Shall  the  fishermen  of  Galilee,  then,  be 
supposed  equal  to  express  themselves  with  unerring 
correctness,  if  left  to  their  own  2:)hraseology  ? 

It  may  be  said,  that  this  invalidates  the  authority 
of  translations  of  the  Scriptures.  And  I  admit  that 
it  does  imply,  that  no  uninspired  translation  can 
have  the  same  authority  of  the  ins]3ired  original. 
But  where  is  the  man  that  has  ever  raised  transla- 
tions to  such  a  rank?  The  universal  consent  of 
controversialists  takes  this  for  granted,  why  then 
should  the  abettors  of  verbal  inspiration  be  taken 
to  account  on  this  head?  In  determining  the 
meaning  of  all  controverted  passages,  the  last 
appeal  is  universally  to  the  original.  This  is  the 
ultimate  ground  on  which  certainty  of  meaning  can 
be  affixed.  They  who  cannot  have  access  to  the 
very  words  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  inspired, 
have  not  the  highest  grounds  of  certainty  as  to  his 
meaning.  The  inferiority  of  the  authority  of  trans- 
lations to  the  inspired  original,  is  a  fact  that  all 
must  equally  admit.  Dr.  S.  himself  asks,  if  Alethia 
understands  German,  supposing  this  to  be  a  quali- 
fication for  the  adequate  ability  of  deciding  with 
respect  to  the  sentiments  contained  in  Dr.  IlafFner's 
Pi^eface  to  the  Bible. 

But  while  all  must  admit  that  uninspired  trans- 
lations have  an  authority  inferior  to  that  of  the 
inspired  orighial,  no  sound  critic  can  question  the 
adequacy  of  translation  for  all  essential  purposes  to 


124  i:>:=PIRATION   OF 

the  iimearnecl.  Tne  Scriptures  are  not  in  a  worse 
condition,  on  tliis  point,  than  the  classics,  and  all 
ancient  and  foreign  books.  Every  one  knows,  that 
to  understand  what  is  £i:oino'  on  in  the  continent, 
the  bulk  of  the  peoj^le  of  this  country  have  no 
essential  need  for  its  languages.  Nay,  a  criminal 
may  be  tried  for  his  life,  upon  the  testimony  of  a 
witness  whose  meaning  can  only  be  known  to  the 
court  by  interpretation.  For  the  general  faithful- 
ness of  translations,  there  may  be  every  testimony 
that,  in  human  affairs,  usually  determines  opinion 
on  the  most  important  points.  ISTor  is  the  learned 
man  himself  independent  of  human  testimony.  On 
this  ground  it  is  that  he  knows  he  has  the  inspired 
original.  And  though  he  has  the  inspired  original, 
he  has  not  an  inspired  or  infallible  knowledge  of 
that  original.  In  many  things,  then,  he  will  bo 
liable  to  mistake  the  inspired  meanmg.  While  he 
has  an  undoubted  and  a  verv  ^reat  advantasce  over 
the  illitei'ate,  he  is  not  without  difficulty,  nor  be- 
yond the  reach  of  error.  In  judging  of  the  fitness 
of  the  modes  of  communicating  divine  Iniowledge, 
incredulit}^  demands  evidence  that  admits  no  eva- 
sion ;  and  learned  Christians  often  desire  to  indulge 
them  in  this  humor.  But  in  this  they  err,  aot 
thoroughly  knov/ing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  works 
of  creation  and  Providence.  In  all  God's  works 
there  is  the  impression  of  His  own  hand ;  not,  how- 
ever, so  les^ible  but  chicanerv  mav  question  it,  and 


THE    SCiilPTUKKS.  125 

plausibly  ascribe  it  to  forgery.  Iiilidels  demand 
evidence  with  respect  to  the  Scriptures,  not  ana- 
logical to  that  in  any  other  of  God's  works ;  and 
wlien  Christians  endeavor  to  satisfy  them  in  this, 
they  compromise  the  dignity  of  their  God.  Is  it 
not  enough  that  men  have  the  same  kind  and  de- 
gree of  evidence  with  respect  to  the  revealed  will 
of  God,  that  determines  them  in  all  other  things  ? 
Must  Jehovah  shut  up  every  avenue  to  evasion, 
before  vre  will  deign  to  accept  His  mercy  ?  Salva- 
tion is  our  ovai  concern.  Shall  we  then  so  doat  on 
damnation,  that  unless  one  rise  from  the  dead,  we 
will  not  believe  the  message  of  reconciliation  ?  If 
the  unlearned  man  rejects  the  Scriptures  because 
he  has  not  an  inspired  translation,  his  own  conduct, 
in  aU  other  things,  will  attest  the  justice  of  his  eter- 
nal condemnation.  To  convince  him  of  the  duty  of 
receivino'  his  Eno-lish  Bible  as  a  revelation  from 
God,  there  is  no  need  of  teaching  hun  the  chimeri- 
cal theory  of  an  inspiration  of  mea,ning,  abstracted 
from  the  words  that  convey  that  meaning,  that  will 
diffuse  itself,  with  equal  facility  and  ecjual  authority, 
through  all  the  metaphrases,  translations  and  com- 
mentaries. It  will  be  perfectly  sufficient  to  shov/ 
him  that  he  has  the  same  kind  of  authority  on 
■which  he  rests  his  knowledge  of  all  countries,  an- 
cient and  modern, — and  on  which  depends  the  most 
momentous  concerns  of  man. 

Let  it  be  observed  also,  that  we  have  greater  evi- 


126  IKSPIKATION    OF 

clence  of  tlie  general  correctness  and  sufficiency  of 
translation,  than  we  could  have  with  respect  to  the 
phraseology  of  inspired  writers,  had  that  been  left 
to  themselves.  Translations  ai-e  made  by  the  most 
learned  men  of  their  age  and  country ;  the  inspired 
writers  were  generally  illiterate,  and  none  of  them 
masters  of  composition.  But  what  is  of  higher 
importance,  every  error  supposed  to  be  committed 
by  the  original  writers,  must  remain  forever  undis- 
coverable  and  irremediable ;  whereas,  if  a  transla- 
tion commits  an  error,  it  can  be  corrected  by 
recourse  to  the  original.  The  inspired  original 
remains  a  ground-work  for  reference,  wdth  respect 
to  all  translations.  There  can  be  no  such  appeal 
with  respect  to  any  blunders  of  the  hispired  writers. 
If  they  have  erred  in  the  choice  of  a  word  or  phrase, 
we  cannot  go  up  to  heaven  to  have  it  corrected.  The 
general  consent  of  translations,  in  representing 
Scriptural  truth,  is  such  as  to  afford  evidence  of 
general  correctness.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that 
a  Bible  inspired  in  thoughts,  but  uninspired  in 
words,  might  have  been  sufficient  as  to  all  things 
essential  to  salvation,  vfith  all  the  errors  contained 
in  the  phraseology.  I  admit  it ;  but  would  such  a 
Bible  be  as  good  a  one  as  that  which  is  verbally 
inspired?  Would  such  a  Bible  be  God's  Scrip- 
tures? Could  it  be  said  of  such  a  book,  that  it 
was  all  given  by  inspiration  of  God?  Better  to 
have  such  a  book  than  no  knowledire  of  salvation. 


THE    SCKIFTUKES.  127 

as  it  would  be  better  to  eat  bread  made  of  sandy 
flour  than  be  starved.  But  as  it  would  be  better 
to  have  bread  made  of  pure  flour,  so  it  would  be 
better  to  have  an  inspired  Bible.  A  Christian  going 
into  a  heathen  country  without  a  copy  of  the 
Scriptures,  might  communicate  the  knowledge  of 
salvation.  But  had  he  with  him  all  the  best  books 
that  ever  were  written  on  Christianity,  could  they 
adequately  supply  the  place  of  the  Bible?  But 
what  reason  can  be  assigned  for  such  stinginess  in 
the  Divine  favor  ?  Why  does  the  all-boimtiful 
Author  of  creation  deal  out  His  boons  of  grace  with 
so  niggardly  a  hand  ?  If  He  did  not  employ  men 
to  complete  His  works,  why  should  He  to  complete 
His  vrord?  Is  the  Almighty  weary  in  working, 
that  Christians  are  unwilling  to  give  Him  unne- 
cessary trouble?  Must  they  enter  into  minute 
calculations  to  ascertain  how  far  they  can  do  with- 
out His  assistance  ?  Are  they  determined  to  refuse 
from  Him  every  thing  which  they  can  hope  to  want 
w^ithout  irreparable  loss  ? 

Except  it  is  for  the  same  good-natured  purpose, 
to  make  the  toil  of  complete  inspu-ation  less  neces- 
sary in  God,  I  cannot  see  the  use  of  substituting,  in 
some  cases,  divine  acceptance  of  words  for  infusion. 
According  to  this  scheme  there  is  no  need  for  the 
inspired  writer  to  trouble  the  Spirit  for^the  inspi- 
ration of  every  word.  On  many  occasions  his  own 
laiowlcclge  of  phi*aseology,  subject  to  the  Divine 


128  i:XSPIKATION    OF 

inspection,  will  sufficiently  siipj)ly  liim.  Such  a 
scheme  appears  to  me  too  bungling  to  ascribe  to 
any  man  of  common  sense — to  ascribe  it  to  Jehovah 
is,  in  my  view,  little  less  than  blasphemy.  I  ac- 
knowledge that  if  God  would  accept  the  words 
suggested  spontaneously,  or  searched  for  by  ^  the 
inspired  T\Titers,  it  would  come  to  the  same  practical 
issue.  A  bill  accepted  is  virtually  a  man's  own 
bill ;  but  to  represent  a  penman  of  Scriptm-e  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  working  on  such  a  scheme  strikes 
me  as  so  ridiculous  that  I  cannot  look  at  it  but 
with  contempt  and  abhorrence.  Is  it  to  make  the 
work  a  little  easier  to  Omnipotence,  and  to  save 
some  trouble  to  Ilhn  who  wearies  not  in  working, 
that  such  a  confused  and  jumblmg  plan  is  proposed  ? 
What  a  wonderful  interruption  in  the  mental 
oj)eration  of  the  Apostles  when  writing  or  speaking ! 
How  many  wrong  words  and  phrases,  how^  many 
inadequate  expressions  must  be  supposed  to  be 
presenting  themselves  to  the  Holy  Sph-it  for  accep- 
tance in  the  minds  of  the  Apostles !  These  must 
all  be  rejected,  and  if  not  rej^laced  by  infusion,  new 
ones  must  again  and  again  be  sought  for.  If  the 
suitable  word  is  not  supplied  immediately  by  the 
Spirit,  the  illiterate  fishermen  might  have  halted 
and  stammered  till  eternity,  before  they  would  have 
iinished  .one  sermon  or  one  letter.  The  scheme  of 
acceptance  might  not  have  seemed  so  utterly  ridi- 
culous, if  God  had  chosen  the  most  learned  men  as 


THE   SCKIPTUEES.  120 

tlie  writers  of  Scripture ;  but  with  illiterate  men, 
who  are  almost  as  ill  supplied  with  terms  and 
phraseology  as  with  ideas,  it  would  be  a  more 
tedious  process  than  comj^lete  verbal  infusion. 

This  also  shows  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that 
inspiration  of  fects,  with  faithfulness  of  statement, 
is  all  that  is  necessary  for  Scripture  history.  J^o 
subject  requires  a  more  full  supply  of  phraseology 
■  than  history,  i^o  subject  requires  more  art  in  the 
disposing  of  its  matter.  So  difficult  is  it,  indeed, 
that  few  men  in  all  ages  have  succeeded  in  it.  The 
historian  must  be  master  not  only  of  all  things  re- 
lated by  him,  but  he  must  be  supplied  with  the 
terms  and  phraseology  that  respect  all  the  objects, 
and  all  the  relations,  &c.  which  are  to  be  repre- 
sented in  his  history.  Illiterate  men  have  many 
ideas  for  which  they  have  no  words — learned  men 
themselves  are  sometimes  in  the  same  predicament. 
Let  an  illiterate  man  be  inspired  with  a  full  lmov>r- 
ledge  of  all  the  affairs  of  Britain,  throughout  all 
ages,  he  will  still  be  unfit  to  write  a  history  of 
England.  He  must  have  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
the  words  of  the  language  in  which  he  writes,  art 
to  arrange,  and  what  is  still  more  difficult,  a  fluency 
of  expression  and  facility  of  composition.  To  the 
waiters  of  Scripture  history,  inspiration  of  words 
was  as  necessary  as  inspiration  of  facts.  But  had 
they  been  the  most  perfect  masters  of  language  and 
composition,  to  write  a  history  that  might  be  per- 


130  I^N'^iPlKATION    OF 

fectly  relied  on  as  a  part  of  the  word  of  God,  inspi- 
ration of  every  word  was  necessary.  Let  ns  grant, 
however,  for  a  moment,  that  plenary  verbal  inspi- 
ration was  not,  in  our  view,  essential;  is  this  a 
reason  why  we  should  not  receive  the  obviou9 
testimony  of  Scripture  on  this  point  ?  Shall  we  be 
allowed  to  be  better  judges  of  what  is  necessary 
than  God  ?  How  many  things  will  human  wisdom 
reject  in  Scripture,  if  this  theory  is  allowed  ?  Some 
think  a  general  judgment  umiecessary,  seeing  every 
man  is  judged  at  death;  and,  according  to  this 
theory,  they  are  justifiable  in  attempting  to  explain 
Scripture  in  conformit}^  with  their  opinion. 

The  second  objection  to  plenary  inspiration, 
alleged  by  Dr.  S.,  is : 

"It  is  attended  with  extreme  difficulties.  For 
example :  in  two  or  three  of  the  Evangelists,  we 
often  find  the  same  discourse  or  sentence  of  our 
Lord  expressed  by  each  in  different  words,  though 
with  precisely  the  same  sense.  If,  then,  we  demand 
a  verbal  inspiration  in  any  one  of  these  cases,  we 
destroy  the  possibility  of  it  with  respect  to  the  cor- 
respondent passage." 

Instead  of  finding  extreme  difficulties  in  the 
things  here  mentioned,  I  can  feel  no  respect  for  the 
understanding  that  finds  in  them  any  difficulty  at 
all.  It  is  here  taken  for  granted  as  an  axiom,  that 
two  or  more  accounts  of  the  same  thino^,  differino; 
in  phraseology,  though  substantially  agreeing,  can- 


■  THE   SCKirXUKES.  131 

not  ail  be  the  words  of  inspiration.  iSTow  a  very 
small  degree  of  perspicacity  will  enable  any  man 
to  see,  that  instead  of  being  a  necessary  truth,  this 
has  not  the  smallest  foundation.  In  relating  the 
same  event  on  several  occasions,  a  narrator  may 
each  time  use  different  phraseology;  but  if  his 
accounts  substantially  agree,  no  man  will  ever 
charge  him  with  falsehood.  A  man,  even  on  his 
oath,  being  several  times  called  on  to  relate  a  fact, 
will  never  be  found  fault  with  so  long  as  his 
accounts  substantially  agree.  To  attempt  exactly 
the  same  phraseology  would  rather  look  suspicious. 
Xow,  if  such  is  the  case  among  men,  why  should 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  relating  facts,  be  bound  by 
different  rules  ?  When  he  speaks  in  our  language 
shall  he  not  speak  truth  as  recpired  of  men?  Why 
should  a  perfect  identity  of  words  be  at  all  aimed 
at?  If  the  variety  of  exju-ession  in  relating  the 
same  thing  in  the  G-ospels  would  not  affect  the 
truth  of  the  narration,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
writers  were  uninspired  men,  why  should  it  be 
thought  im23ro]3er  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  make  use 
of  that  variety  ?  Must  a  different  lav/  be  prescribed 
to  him  when  he  uses  the  language  of  man,  from 
that  which  binds  man  himself?  The  thought  is 
perfectly  childisli.  Let  us  take  as  an  example  one 
fact  differently  worded  by  the  four  Evangelists — 
the  inscription  ^T.'itten  over  the  head  of  Jesus  on 
the  cross :    This  is  Jesus  the  I\jng  of  the  Jews, 


132  I^vSrillATIOA'    OF 

Mattli. — ^Tiie  King  of  tlie  Jews,  Mark, — This  is  the 
King  of  the  Jevrs,  Luke, — Jesus  of  Xazareth,  the 
King  of  the  Jews,  John.  'Now  I  maintain  that  as 
four  honest  men  might  have  related  this  fact  with 
this  variety  of  expression,  v/ithout  any  imj)each- 
ment  on  their  veracity,  so  may  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  man  who  says  that  it  is  impossible  for  anj  of 
these  accoimts  but  one  to  be  the  language  of  inspi- 
ration, vu'tually  asserts  that  none  of  them  can  be 
the  language  of  truth,  but  one.  K  the  four  accounts 
are  all  substantially  true,  and  would  not  discredit 
any  of  four  uninspired  men,  they  may,  without  any 
disparagement  to  God,  be  all  the  language  of  the 
Holy  Si^irit.  In  speaking  the  language  of  men, 
his  veracity  must  be  tried  by  the  rules  of  human 
language.  Instead,  then,  of  saying  that  such  a 
variety  of  expression  in  relating  this  fact,  supposes 
that  the  words  were  left  to  the  Evangelists  them- 
selves, I  will  fearlessly  assert  that  each  of  the  four 
accounts  is  verbally  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  If  the  four  accounts  are  true  and  reconci- 
leable  as  the  language  of  men,  they  are  equally 
true  and  reconcileable  as  the  language  of  God.  It 
is  a  hy|Dercritical  fastidiousness  that  demands  from 
God  an  identity  of  expression  in  narration,  which 
truth  never  demanded  from  man.  From  this 
variety  I  deduce  a  far  different  doctrine  from  Dr. 
S.  As  in  the  v/ord  of  God  I  perceive  a  palpable, 
1  may  say  a  designed  variety   of  expression   in 


THE  scT.inuiiEti.  133 

relating  the  same  thing,  I  learn  from  tlils  that  the 
God  of  truth  sanctions  the  great  principle  that  is 
acknowledged  by  men  in  general  with  respect  to 
the  nature  of  truth,  and  gives  not  His  countenance 
to  that  aiiected  morality,  that,  like  Dr.  Smith's, 
pretends  to  find  imperfection  in  the  smallest  instance 
of  verbel  variety.  Yv^e  have  the  authority  of  the 
divine  example,  that  substantial  truth  is  truths 
with  whatever  variety  it  may  be  expressed.  Dr.  S. 
tells  us  that,  "  in  two  or  three  of  the  Evangelists, 
we  often  find  the  same  discourse  or  sentence  of  our 
Lord  expressed  by  each  in  difi'erent  words,  though 
with  precisely  the  same  eflect."  Why,  Dr.  S., 
should  this  imply  that  each  may  not  be  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Spirit  ?  If  the  sense  is  precisely  the 
same,  must  the  God  of  truth  be  forbidden  to  use  a 
variety  of  expression,  perfectly  allowable  to  man  ? 
Yet  Dr.  S.-,  certainly  not  to  the  credit  of  his  mider- 
standing,  infers  from  the  above  fact,  that  "  if  we 
demand  a  verbal  inspiration  in  any  one  of  these 
cases,  we  destroy  the  possibility  with  resj^ect  to 
the  correspondent  passage."  I  admit  this  variety, 
and  yet  I  demand  a  verbal  inspiration,  not  merely 
in  some  one,  but  in  each  of  the  correspondent 
passages.  Any  tiling  that  forbids  the  verbal  inspi- 
ration will  affect  the  truth  of  the  relation.  If  it  is 
truth  as  the  word  of  an  uninspired  historian,  it 
certainly  is  not  less  truth  as  the  word  of  God.  Dr. 
S.  must  have  very  limited  views  of  possibility, 


134  IKSPIEATION    OF 

wlien  lie  imagines  an  impossibility  here.  It  is 
evident  tliat  there  is  great  confusion  in  his  own 
mind  on  this  subject.  The  assertion,  with  resj)ect 
to  possibility,  takes  it  for  granted  that  variety  is 
contradiction.  It  is  evident  also,  that  he  looks  on 
variety  of  expression,  in  relating  the  same  thing, 
as  morally  faulty,  though  not  in  a  degree  that 
deserves  notice  as  respects  man.  Were  there  not 
some  jumble  in  his  mind  of  this  kind,  variety  of 
expression  vfouid  never  strike  him  as  inconsistent 
with  inspiration. 

But  I  have  another  observation  on  the  doctrine 
of  this  objection.  It  is  here  positively  asserted  that 
the  verbal  inspiration  of  all  the  Evangelists  but  one 
is  impossible.  K^ow,  how  does  this  consist  with  the 
language  of  the  first  objection?  In  showing  iiifu- 
sioii  of  words  to  be  unnecessary,  he  takes  it  for 
granted  that  the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer  was 
certainly  guided  to  the  test  and  most  suitaVle  terms. 
Now  I  ask,  if  the  Evangelists  were  guided  with 
certainty^  by  divine  influence,  to  the  use  of  the 
words  and  phrases  employed  by  them,  in  all  this 
variety  of  expression,  is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
chargeable  with  the  variety,  as  if  he  had  directly 
infused  the  words  ?  If  he  is  imiocent  as  a  guidc^ 
so  is  he  innocent  as  an  infuser.  This  evidently 
shows  that  the  writer  has  formed  no  distinct 
views  on  the  subject,  but  floats  among  clouds  and 
fogs  of  his  own  creation,  even  in  that  heavenly 


THE    SClilPTUKES. 


135 


climate,  wlierc  godlj  simi^licity  would  have  found 
meridian  liglit.      One   other  observation  on  tliis 
objection,  and  I  have  done.     I  admit,  for  argument 
sake,  that  the  doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration  has 
great  difficulties,  though  I  have  demonstrated  that 
it  has  none.     What  can  my  opponent  make  of  the 
admission?     Shall  the  existence  of  difficulties  be  a 
sufficient  reason  to  deny  what  the  Scriptures,  with 
such  a  mass  of  evidence,  assert  ?     Then  give  up  the 
sovereignty  of  grace ;  give  up  particrJar  redemi> 
tion ;  give  up  the  divinity  of  Christ ;  give  up  the 
Scriptures   themselves;   give   up  the  existence  of 
God.     It  is  a  scheme  for  any  man  acquainted  with 
theology  and  science,  to  talk  of  difficulties  as  ren- 
dering  any  sentiment   untenable.     'No   important 
subject  is  "^free  from  difficulties,  and  some  of  the 
most  important  have  the  most  puzzling  difficulties. 
It  is  evidently  the  design  of  the  divine  procedure, 
that  such  difficulties  should  try  the  humility  and 
the  faith  of  God's  people,  while  they  are  as  gins 
and  snares  to  human  wisdom.     Yet  it  is  not  agree- 
able, even  to  the  vcisdom  of  this  world,  to  deny  a 
doctrine  for  having  difficulties,  even  great  difficul- 
culties.     In  opposition  to  Dr.  S.  I  maintain,  with 
the  greatest  confidence  of  conviction,  that  rational 
criticism  cannot  set  aside,  by  difficulties,  any  doc- 
trine alleghig  a  foundation  in  Scripture.     Though 
I  had  been  obliged  to  leave  tliis  objection  unan- 
swered,—though  Dr,  S.  had  given  me  passages 


136  INSPLRATION    OF 

wliicli  I  could  not  reconcile  with  the  doctrine  of 
Yerbal  inspiration,  I  would  have  trampled  on  his 
objection  as  insufficient.  There  are  many  difficul- 
ties in  the  Scriptures  that  may  never  be  solved 
bv  man.  A  resolution  to  receive  no  doctrine  that 
has  unsolved  difficulties,  would  be  a  symptom,  not 
of  w^isdom,  but  of  wealaiess. 

The  third  objection  is,  that  ''  it  deprives  all  trans- 
lations of  their  claims  to  the  authority  of  inspira- 
tion." Here,  again,  the  author  discovers  great 
confusion  in  his  mode  of  thinking.  Though  I  do 
not  believe  the  inspiration  of  translations,  yet  such 
a  belief  does  not  result  from  the  doctrine  of  plenary 
inspiration,  with  respect  to  the  original.  Listead 
of  depriving  all  translations  of  a  claim  to  inspira- 
tion, this  doctrine  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the 
supposition,  that  there  might  be  an  inspired  trans- 
lation in  every  language  on  earth.  We  may  indeed 
believe  the  inspiration  of  the  original,  and  deny  the 
inspiration  of  every  translation  that  exists ;  but  our 
denying  of  the  latter  is  not  infiuenced  by  our  belief 
of  the  former.  The  question  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  original,  is  not  affected  by  the  inspiration  or 
non-inspiration  of  any  translation.  But  let  us  hear 
the  reason  the  author  gives  why  this  doctrine 
deprives  translations  of  the  authority  of  inspiration : 
"  For  by  the  hypothesis  the  original  text  alone  can 
possess  that  authority."  We  admit,  indeed,  that 
our  doctrine  implies  that  the  words  of  the  original 


THE    SClllPTUKES.  137 

alone  arc  inspired, — does  Dr.  S.'s  tlieory  suppose 
the  words  of  translations  to  be  inspired?  We 
admit  tliat  the  inspired  thought  of  the  original  may 
be  transfused  into  an  uninspired  translation;  but 
that  we  have  the  uninspired  thought  in  the  transla- 
tion, we  rest  on  our  own  Imovvdedge  of  the  original, 
or  on  testimony.  Does  Dr.  Smith's  theory  give  us 
greater  certainty  of  having  the  inspired  thought? 
Our  doctrine  is  not  more  unfavorable  to  the  autho- 
rity of  translations  than  is  his  hypothesis.  He 
maintains  that  the  thoughts  and  sentiments,  rather 
than  the  words,  are  to  be  considered  inspired.  "We 
maintain,  as  well  as  he,  that  the  thoughts  and  senti- 
ments are  inspired,  and  the  words  also.  E"ow,  in 
a  translation,  he  thinks  the  thoughts  and  sentiments 
may  remain,  while  the  words  of  the  original  are  left 
behind.  What  hinders  us  from  thinking  the  same 
thing?  He  brings  out  inspired  thoughts  from 
unins])rred  words;  what  can  prevent  us  from 
doing  the  same  from  insjyired  vjords  f  In  holding 
the  inspiration  of  words,  we  do  not  deny  the  inspi- 
ration of  thoughts  ;  but  Dr.  S.  holds  the  inspii-ation 
of  thoughts,  and  denies  the  inspiration  of  words. 
The  difference  betvv^een  us,  then,  is  not  that  our 
doctrine  gives  less  authority  as  regards  translation, 
but  that  his  hypothesis  gives  less  authority  as 
regards  the  original  itself.  Our  view  does  not 
disparage  translations  more  than  his,  while  his 
view  disparages  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.     If 


138  •  INSPmATION    OF 

liis  view  approximates  the  autlioritj  of  ti-anslatioiis, 
and  that  of  the  original  more  nearly  than  ours,  it 
is  not  by  elevating  translation,  but  by  lowering  the 
original.  The  nninsj)ired  words  of  translations,  so 
far  as  suitable,  are  brought  to  a  level  with  the 
words  of  the  original,  by  making  both  uninspired. 
How  can  the  belief  of  the  inspiration  of  the  words 
of  the  original,  lessen  the  authority  of  a  translation  ? 
Has  not  a  translation  of  insj^ired  words  as  good  a 
claim  to  authority,  as  a  translation  of  uninspired 
words?  Was  ever  any  thing  so  absurd  as  to 
suppose  that  a  translation  must  lose  a  portion  of  its 
authority  by  a  claim  of  verbal  inspiration  in  the 
original  ?  Will  not  every  person  who  impartially 
reflects  a  moment,  be  convinced  that  we  give  a 
higher  authority  tlian  our  opponents,  not  only  to 
the  original,  but  also  to  translations  ?  Translations, 
according  to  Dr.  Smith,  are  translations  of  unin- 
spired words  ;  according  to  us,  they  are  transla- 
tions of  inspired  words.  Tlie  objection  proceeds 
on  the  absurd  supposition  that  the  belief  of  the 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scri^Dtues,  necessarily 
implies  the  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  thoughts  and 
Bentiments.  By  whatever  process  he  exti^acts  in- 
spired thoughts  from  uninspired  words,  surely  by 
a  similar  process  we  may  extract  inspired  thoughts 
from  inspired  words.  Our  translation  of  a  book 
more  fully  inspired  than  his,  will  surely  have  as 
much  autliority  as  his,  that  is  the  translation  of  a 


THE   SCKiriUKES.  139 

book  not  so  fully  inspired.  It  is  an  odd  theory 
indeed,  tliat  to  detract  from  the  authority  of  the 
original,  is  to  add  to  that  of  the  translation. 

But  what  can  be  more  loc^ical  than  Dr.  Smith's 
conclusion?  Verbal  inspiration  deprives  transla- 
tions of  a  claim  to  inspiration ;  for  our  translations 
are  not  verbally  inspired.  This,  however,  is  but 
a  specious  sophism.  It  confounds  mspiration  of 
Ithoughts  with  inspiration  of  w^ords.  Of  what  kind 
of  inspiration  does  this  view  deprive  translations  ? 
Of  words  only.  But  does  Dr.  Smith  give  mspira- 
ration  of  words  to  translations  ?  Does  his  theory 
give  inspiration  to  translations  that  he  acknow- 
ledges to  be  uninsj)ired?  Can  his  theory  give 
a  more  full  inspiration  to  the  thoughts  and  senti- 
ments, as  contained  in  translations,  than  ours? 
How,  then,  does  verbal  inspiration  deprive  transla,- 
tions  of  a  claim  to  inspiration  ?  It  denies  them 
inspiration  in  so  sense  in  which  Dr.  Smith  claims 
it.  This'formidable  objection,  then,  amounts  to  no 
more  than  that,  if  the  words  of  Scripture  in  the 
original  are  inspired,  they  are  of  more  authority 
than  the  words  of  any  uninspired  translation,  a 
truth  which  I  suppose  no  man  ever  thought  of 
calling  in  question. 

These  observations  will  prepare  us  to  bear  the 
shock  of  the  astomiding  conserpiences,  that  the 
learned  doctor  draws  from  our  doctrine.  "Hence 
it  would  follow,"  savs  he,  "  that  the  p-eneral  bodv  of 


140  INSPIKATION    OF 

Christians,  who  are  under  a  necessity  of  depending 
on  translations,  are  in  fact  destitnte  of  any  inspu'ed 
Scriptures."  What  a  dreadful  abyss  is  this  into 
V\^hich  we  have  plunged  the  greater  part  of  the 
Christian  world !  How  wofuUy  have  I  been  mis- 
taken! I  had  thought  that  my  doctrine  on  this 
point  was  not  equally  innocent  with  that  of  my 
opponents,  but  had  consoled  myself,  that  by  coming 
forward  in  this  controversy,  I  was  pleading  thep 
cause  of  both  God  and  His  people.  But  now  I  fiiid 
that  I  am  laboring  only  to  deprive  the  bulk  of  my 
fellow-creatures  of  the  inspired  Scriptures.  In  ever 
was  there  a  greater  disappointment.  But  before  I 
admit  these  frightful  consequences,  let  me  make  an 
efibrt  to  avoid  them.  According  to  our  view,  it  is 
alleo-ed  that  the  unlearned  are  destitute  of  the  in- 

CD 

spired  Scriptures.  Destitute  they  are  indeed  of  an 
inspired  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  destitute 
in  this  respect,  I  presume,  as  fully  on  Dr.  Smith's 
plan  as  on  our's,  and  I  have  shown  something  more 
60.  Will  Dr.  Smith  have  the  goodness  to  point  out 
in  what  respect  the  translation  can  be  called  the 
inspired  Scriptures,  according  to  his  view  of  inspi- 
ration, in  which  they  cannot  be  so  called  according 
to  ours?  There  is  a  diiference  of  authority,  be- 
tween the  original  and  uninspired  translations. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  discuss  thig  in 
this  controversy.  Dr.  Smith  and  all  others  must 
confess  this.     I  presume  there  never  was  a  Biblical 


THE    SCRIPTURK-.  14-t 

critic  60  fooiisli  as  to  put  an  uninspired  translation 
on  a  level  with  the  inspired  original.  In  whatever 
sense  Dr.  Smith's  theory  can  allow  the  English 
Bible  to  be  the  inspired  Scriptures,  our  doctrine 
can  allow  this  in  still  a  higher  sense. 

But  if  the  objection  as  to  the  authority  of  unin- 
spired translations  is  valid,  then,  according  to  Dr. 
Smith's  own  views,  w^e  have  in  translations  no  in- 
spired Scriptures,  as  far  as  concerns  all  those  parts 
in  Avhich  he  admits  that  verbal  inspiration  was  neces- 
sary. He  admits  the  necessity  of  verbal  inspiration, 
in  conveying  prophecies  not  understood  by  the 
prophet.  INTow  in  translations,  either  these  are  not 
inspired  Scriptures,  or  if  they  are,  all  Scripture 
may  have  heen  verbally  inspired,  yet  in  translation 
be  considered  inspired  Scripture.  What  is  true  as 
to  any  portion,  may  be  true  as  to  the  whole.  His 
own  admissions,  then,  refute  his  theory. 

The  most  formidable  view  of  the  objection,  how- 
ever, is  still  to  come.  "  The  consequence,"  he 
observes,  "w^ill  also  reach  still  higher.  As  the  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord  w^ere  delivered  in  the  vernp^cu- 
lar  tongue  of  Judea,  the  recital  of  them  in  the 
Greek  Gospels,  cannot  be  the  very  words  which  he 
used,  but  muist  be  translations."  Here  is  a  tre- 
mendous consequence  of  verbal  inspiration.  By 
the  wicked  doctrine  that  God,  in  revealing  His  will 
to  men,  uses  His  own  words,  w^e  deprive  not  only 
the  unlearned  of  inspired  Scriptures,  but  we  do 


142  IXSPIKATION   OF 

not  leave  a  Bible  even  to  the  learned  themselves. 
Really  I  could  not  have  apprehended  any  such 
dreadful  evil,  from  alio vvnng  God  to  use  His  own 
words  in  communicating  His  own  mind.  It  is  a 
shame  for  a  man  of  learning  to  throw  out  senti- 
ments so  crude.  Surely  he  ought  to  have  reflected 
a  moment,  before  he  ventered  to  hazard  such  para- 
doxes. Ought  not  his  good  sense  to  have  suspected 
the  process  of  reasoning,  that  led  to  draw  conclu- 
sions so  frightful  from  premises  so  harmless.  Had 
he  allowed  himself  coolly  to  examine  his  own  rea- 
soning, he  could  not  have  allov/ed  his  mind  to  be 
entangled  by  cobwebs  that  must  break  from  the 
lowest  exertion  of  human  intellect.  I  should  be 
surprised  if  a  very  child  could  be  imposed  on  by 
such  reasoning,  however  unable  he  might  be  to  un- 
ravel the  sophistry  of  it.  "\Vhat  is  the  argument  ? 
Our  Lord  spoke  in  the  vernacular  language  of  Ju- 
dea,  but  the  Gospels  relate  his  discourses  in  Greek ; 
therefore,  on  the  supposition  of  verbal  inspiration 
in  the  speaker,  the  Gospels  that  speak  in  Greek 
cannot  be  inspired.  There  is  a  world  of  obscurity 
and  silliness  in  this  reasoning.  It  supposes  every 
translation  to  be  of  necessity  uninspired.  For  if  it 
is  possible  for  an  inspired  translation  to  be  given 
of  an  inspired  original,  why  is  it  taken  for  granted 
that  the  circumstance  of  the  accoimts  of  our  Lord's 
discom-ses,  being  recorded  in  Greek,  forbids  the 
inspiration  of  those  accounts?    The  words  of  the 


TITE    SCIilPTtTRES.  143 

Evangelists  are,  indeed,  only  a  translation  of  tlie 
words  used  by  our  Lord ;  but  if  tlie  Scriptures  are 
inspired,  these  words  are  an  inspired  translation. 
What  does  it  concern  us  in  what  language  Christ 
spoke  his  discourses,  if  they  are  recorded  to  us  in 
an  inspil^)d  translation  ?  Paul  spoke  the  language 
of  the  people  whom  he  addressed,— does  this  imply 
that  the  words  that  record  this  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  are  not  inspired,  because  they  must  be 
only  a  translation  of  the  words  that  Paul  used  ? 

But  the  consequence  of  this  objection  loorks  still 
higher.  Jesus  Christ  surely  spoke  by  inspiration, 
his  words  were  verbally  the  word  of  God.  Is^ow, 
as  we  have  jione  of  these  words,  none  of  his  doc- 
trines, but  by  translation,  according  to  Dr.  Smith's 
theory,  we  are  destitute  of  inspired  Scripture  with 
respect  to  our  Lord's  doctrine.  Should  Dr.  Smith 
reply,  that  though  we  have  not  the  words  of  Christ, 
we  have  the  thoughts  and  sentiments;  I  subjoin, 
that  this  cannot  be  said  by  him,  consistently  with 
this  objection,  for  that  represents  verbal  inspiration 
in  the  original,  as  destructive  of  inspiration  in  the 
translation.  I  subjoin  forther,  that  if  verbal  inspi- 
ration in  Jesus  Christ  does  not  forbid  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Gospels  as  to  thoughts  and  sentiments, 
neither  does  verbal  insj^iration  in  the  original  forbid 
the  supposition  of  having  the  inspired  doctrine  of 
Christ  contained  in  uninspired  translations.  Dr. 
Smith  brings  his  elephants  into  the  field,  but  they 


144  INSPTKATION    OF 

are  so  ill  disciplined,  tliat  instead  of  trampling  doYvn 
tlie  enenij,  tliej  take  to  fliglit,  and  crusli  liis  o\^^i 
ranks.  The  aiitlior  seems  to  have  lost  himself,  in  an 
attempt,  by  a  sort  of  chemical  criticism,  to  reduce 
all  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  into  the  thoughts 
and  sentiments,  that  being  then  siiblimate^f?  it  may 
escape  evaporation  in  the  words  that  convey  it,  and 
standing  wholly  unconnected  with  phraseology,  be 
ready  to  transfuse  itself  with  equal  strength  into 
all  other  languages,  even  by  nninspired  translators. 

Granting,  however,  that  a  plenary  verbal  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scriptures  has  a  more  unfavorable 
aspect  towards  translations  than  the  opposite  senti- 
ment, this  is  not  to  be  admitted  as  a  paramount 
objection  to  a  doctrine  established  by  such  a  weight 
of  evidence  fi*om  the  testimony  of  God's  word.  A 
sound  critic  would  not  allow  its  authority  for  a 
moment, — not  even  in  the  utmost  extent  in  which 
it  could  be  supposed  true.  "Whatever  are  the  con- 
sequences as  to  translations,  the  doctrine  of  a  com- 
plete verbal  inspiration  in  the  original  Scriptures 
rests  on  pillars  that  hell  and  earth  will  never 
subvert. 

The  fourth  objection  that  Dr.  Smith  opposes  to 
the  doctrine  of  a  plenary  verbal  inspiration  in  the 
Scriptm-es  is,  that 

"  It  gives  a  serious  weight  to  the  otherwise 
nugatory  objection  against  the  certainty  of  the 
Scriptures,  from  the  existence  of  various  readings. 


THE   bCJKIPTUBES.  145 

For  no  person,  however  well  qualified,  careful  and 
impartial,  in  applying  the  rules  of  criticism,  could 
assure  himself,  and  still  less  could  he  satisfy  others, 
that  he  had  in  every  case  ascertaijied  with  absolute 
certainty,  the  one  genuine  reading.  But  if  we 
regard  the  inspiration  as  attaching  to  the  matter 
and  sentiments  rather  than  to  the  letters  and  sylla- 
bles, the  objection  is  effectually  precluded.  It  is 
not  in  one  instance  out  of  five  hundred  that  the 
diversities  of  manuscripts  and  other  authorities 
produce  the  smallest  alteration  in  the  ultimate 
sense.  Thus,  in  the  general  course,  it  is  all  the 
same,  as  to  practical  effect,  which  reading  is 
accepted;  and  criticism  is  called  to  j^ut  forth  its 
utmost  strength  only  in  these  few  cases  in  which 
the  meanins:  is  affected." 

Upon  this  I  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  it 
virtually  excludes  verbal  inspiration  in  every 
instance.  Whether  it  is  that  the  naked  sentiment 
is  too  shocking  for  the'  author  himself  to  contem- 
plate, or  whether  he  wishes  to  disguise  it  from  his 
readers,  he  does  not  avow  his  sentiment  in  the 
same  extent  in  w^hicli  his  theory  holds  it.  lie  does 
not  deny  verbal  inspiration  flatly ;  nay,  he  admits 
it  in  some  instances.  Here  he  speaks  of  inspiration 
attaching  to  the  matter,  rather  than  to  the  letters 
and  syllables.  But  he  must  mean,  not  inspiration 
of  matter  rather  than  of  words,  but  inspiration  of 
matter  and  not  inspiration  of  words.     The  force  of 


146  i:ssruiA'iiu:s^  uf 

the  objection  applies  equally  to  every  instance  of 
verbal  inspiration.  If  there  is  a  single  verse  in 
Scripture  verbally  inspired,  this  objection  lies 
against  the  credit  of  that  veree.  It  must  either  be 
kept  infallibly  as  free  from  corruption  by  transcri- 
bers as  it  was  originally  pure,  else  this  objection 
will  crush  it  with  its  serious  ^veight.  I^ow,  there 
is  no  part  of  Scripture  infallibly  free  from  corrup- 
tion by  transcribers ;  therefore,  to  save  the  honor 
of  revelation,  according  to  Dr.  Smith,  we  cannot 
suppose  an  inspired  word  is  in  the  Bible.  But, 
unfortunately,  this  same  Dr.  Smith  has  admitted 
that  some  parts  of  Scripture  must  have  been 
verbally  inspired ;  therefore,  against  all  such  parts 
this  weighty  objection  has  its  full  force.  My  mode 
of  reasoning,  whatever  may  be  the  canons  of  Morns, 
Doederlein,  (fcc,  would  be  this.  As  some  parts  of 
Scrij^ture  must  of  necessity  have  been  verbally 
inspired,  and  as  such  parts  are  not  better  secured 
against  the  mistakes  of  transcribers  than  the  rest, 
if  this  objection  cannot  invalidate  the  verbal  inspi- 
ration of  the  one,  neither  can  it  uivalidate  the 
inspu-ation  of  the  other. 

Dr.  Smith's  plan  for  saving  the  honor  of  inspira- 
tion, reminds  me  of  the  way  in  which  the  popish 
persecutors  saved  the  honor  of  the  priesthood; 
when  any  of  the  clergy  were  to  be  burned,  they 
stripped  them  of  their  office  before  they  committed 
them  to  the  flames.     Just  so  ^vith  Dr.  Smith  and 


TlIK    SCKirTUREfc".  147 

inspiration.  To  preserve  it  from  disgrace  tlirough 
accidents  in  transcribing,  lie  removes  it  from  the 
VvT^rds  of  Scriptnre,  and,  witli  all  the  snhlime  mys- 
tery of  the  schoolmen,  places  it  incomprehensibly 
in  the  thonghts  and  sentiments.  Shonld  any  bold 
unbeliever  ask.  How  can  it  be  known  that  the 
inspired  sentiment  is  expressed  ^uth  infallible  cor- 
rectness, if  the  words  are  not  also  inspired  ?  The 
best  answer  is.  It  is  a  mystery,  it  is  all  a  mystery. 

But  these  apprehensions  of  Dr.  Smith  are  alto- 
gether visionary.  Instead  of  giving  a  serious  weight 
to  the  objection  referred  to,  the  doctrine  of  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  adds  not  a  particle  to  its  weight. 
I  maintain  that  it  is  no  way  connected  wdth  such  an 
objection  ;  and  that  to  view  it  in  this  light,  betrays 
a  mind  destitute  in  a  more  than  ordinary  degree, 
of  critical  discrimination.  ''  ^o  person,"  it  is  said, 
"  however  well  qualified,  careful,  and  impartial,  in 
applying  the  rules  of  criticism,  could  assure  himself, 
and  still  less  could  he  satisfy  others,  that  he  had  in 
every  case  ascertained,  with  ahsolnU  certainty,  the 
one  genuine  reading."  Granted ;  fuUy  granted. 
But  what  then  ?  What  makes  such  a  thing  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  defend  verbal  inspiration  ?  Does 
the  doctrine  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration  imply 
that  om-  copies  must  infallibly  contain  the  pure 
original  in  every  instance  ?  It  does  not.  Dr.  Smith. 
It  asserts  that  the  Scriptures,  as  God  gave  them, 
were  his,  not  only  in  matter,  but  in  every  word  of 


14:3  IXSriRATION    OF 

them.  But  this  hy  no  means  implies  that  the 
present  copies  are,  in  every  instance,  perfectly  cor- 
respondent with  the  original.  The  permanency  of 
the  pm*ity  of  the  divine  word,  was  committed  to 
the  care  of  his  Providence,  in  the  nse  of  the  ordi- 
nary means,  by  which  he  can  always  perfectly 
secnre  his  purposes.  Tliere  is  indeed  every  reason, 
a  priori,  to  think  that  God  would  not  suffer  his 
word  to  he  essentially  corrupted ;  and  as  Dr.  Smith 
himself  admits,  there  is  from  fact  the  most  satis- 
factoiy  evidence  that  He  has  not  permitted  it  to  be 
materially  corrupted.  But  the  doctrine  of  verbal 
inspiration  has  nothing  to  do  ^vith  this,  whatever 
may  be  the  extent  of  corruption  by  transcribers. 
If  any  man  were  so  mad  as  to  argue  that  every 
word  in  our  Greek  Xew  Testament  is  infallibly  tlie 
same  with  that  originally  given  by  God,  the  various 
readings  to  which  Dr.  Smith  refers,  would  be  an 
answer  to  such  a  madman.  But  to  point  to  the 
various  readings  as  an  objection  to  the  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  as  they  came 
from  God,  is  to  confound  two  things  entirely  dis- 
tinct and  indej)endent  of  each  other.  ISTor  does  our 
doctrine  make  a  sinsrle  corruption  more  than  Dr. 
S.'s  theory ;  nor  does  the  assertion  that  the  orio-inal 
word,  whose  place  the  corrupted  word  now  fills, 
was  an  inspired  word,  cause  greater  incertitude 
with  respect  to  the  true  meaning,  than  tlie  opinion 
that  it  was  uninspired.     On  the  other  hand,  this 


THE    SCEIPTUKES.  140 

theory,  in  order  to  save  tlie  Scriptures  from  the 
disgrace  of  .iosing  a  few  inspired  words,  degrades 
tliem  from  tlie  rank  of  verbal  inspiration,  and  leaves 
us  to  gather  the  truth  of  God  out  of  the  words  of 
men.  Both  of  us  nnist  acknowledge  the  fact  to  the 
same  extent.  To  suppose  that  the  lost  words. were 
God's  own  words,  is  no  more  injury  to  what  re- 
mains, than  to  suppose  that  they  were  man's  words. 
On  the  other  hand,  this  hideous  theory  robs  us  of 
the  rapturous  consolation,  that  we  have  in  the 
original  of  the  Scriptures  the  very  words  of  God, 
with  the  few  trifling  exceptions  alluded  to.  Would 
if  be  a  greater  benefit  to  have  all  the  words  of 
Scripture  human,  than  to  have  them  all  divine, 
Vvdth  the  exception  of  a  few  unimportant  variations  ? 
K  the  loss  of  a  few  unimportant  words,  considered 
as  divine,  is  an  injury  to  the  Bible,  is  not  the  loss 
of  all  the  words  of  Scripture,  as  inspired,  infinitely 
a  greater  loss  ?  To  save  the  loss  of  some  trifling 
articles,  Dr.  Smith  sinks  the  ship  with  all  its 
treasures.  To  prevent  the  disgrace  of  losing  a  fevvT 
inspired  words,  he  divests  the  Scriptures  of  verbal 
inspiration.  We  have  incomparably  the  best  Bible. 
Every  word  of  our  Bible  was  God's,  as  it  was  first 
delivered.  Dr.  Smith's  Bible  was  never  anything 
but  human  in  language.  We  have  still  the  same 
Bible,  with  a  few  trifling  exceptions.  Dr.  Smith's 
Bible  has  lost  no  divine  words,  because  it  never 
possessed  any.    Tlie  very  worst  part  of  our  Bible 


160  DTSPIRATION   OF 

is  as  good  now,  as  the  very  best  of  Dr.  Smith's 
ever  was. 

The  doctrine,  then,  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration 
stands  clear  of  every  solid  objection.  All  the  inge- 
miity  of  this  learned  writer  has  not  been  able  to 
devise  anything  that  will  fairly  bear  on  the  snbject. 
His  objections  are  so  very  inapplicable,  that  I  can- 
not bring  myself  to  believe,  that  any  man  of  a  dis- 
criminating mind  ever  really  labored  under  their 
^s^eight.  They  appear  rather  to  have  been  songht 
by  stndy,  to  jnstify  a  sentiment  originating  in  some 
other  cause.  Tliey  are  more  like  the  forced  thoughts 
of  declamation,  v^hen  it  strains  to  make  the  best  of 
a  bad  cause,  than  the  serious  scruples  of  a  sound 
mind.  Had  he  given  up  a  fortress  committed  to 
him  by  his  sovereign,  to  forces  so  inconsiderable, 
there  could  not  have  been  found  a  court-martial  in 
the  empire  that  would  not  have  doomed  him  to  lose 
his  head.  The  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  is  one 
of  the  fortresses  committed  to  Christians  by  Jesus 
Christ.  Dr.  Smith  .cries  "  mercy,"  and  strikes  his 
colors  to  a  most  contemptible  enemy,  without  ever 
firing  a  gun.  Had  he  mustered  the  royal  forces, 
and  come  to  an  actual  engagement  with  the  squalid 
foe,  he  would  have  put  him  to  flight  at  the  first  fire. 
He  would  have  found  the  enemy  totally  without 
ammunition.  There  might  be  indeed  as  much 
powder  as  would  enable  him  to  puff  a  little,  but 
not  to  do  anv  execution. 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  151 

Tliis  theory,  indeed,  is  one  of  the  most  inexcusa- 
ble that  ever  was  forged  for  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  On  most  occasions  men  are  tempted  to 
form  theories  from  the  real  difficulties  of  the  case, 
arid  from  some  appearance  of  Scriptural  assertion. 
Plausahle  objections  may  be  alleged  from  the 
Scriptm-es  against  the  doctrine  of  .the  Trinity  itself; 
and  it  requires  solid  criticism  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  the  Arian  in  the  interpretation  of  some 
passages.  But  against  the  plenary  verbal  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scri23tures,  there  is  not  even  alleged 
the  assertion  of  a  single  pasage  of  the  book  of  God. 
Does  the  truth  of  any  thing  contained  in  Scripture 
require  this  theory  ?  Is  it  called  for  by  any  appa- 
rent contradiction?  Is  it  the  only  way  to  solve 
some  insuperable  difficulty  ?  J^o  such  thing.  JSTever 
wa,s  error  more  inexcusable ;  for  never  was  error 
less  provoked  by  difficulty,  or  less  sheltered  by 
appearance  of  Scriptural  assertion.  Where  is  the 
passage  that  has  the  most  remote  appearance  of 
teaching  the  doctrine  contended  for  by  this  T\Titer  ? 
Frightened  by  the  phantoms  that  himself  has 
conjured  up,  to  escape  them  he  plunges  over  a 
precipice.  Plenary  verbal  inspiration  is  asserted 
by  the  Scrij)tures, — such  inspiration  is  necessary 
to  perfect  security  in  conveying  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit, — to  such  ins]3iration  there  is  not  in  Scripture 
one  even  apparently  contradictory  expression,  w^ith 
such  inspiration   there  is   nothing  inconsistent  in 


152  ES'SPIEATION    OF 

their  contents, — ^to  reject  snch  inspiration,  then,  on 
the  stress  of  the  objections  alleged  by  this  writer, 
is  contrary  to  the  first  principles  of  evidence. 

Having  now  examined  the  objections  on  the 
anthorit}^  of  which  Dr.  Smith  rejects  the  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptnres,  I  shall  attend 
to  his  remarl<K  on  the  noted  passages,  2  Tim.  iii  15, 
16,  which  are  as  follows  : 

"That  from  a  child  thon  hast  knovrn  the  holy 
writings  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  nnto 
salvation,  through  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesns.  Every  writing  divinely  inspired  [is]  also 
profitable  for  instruction,  for  conviction  [of  error], 
for  recovery  [to  that  which  is  right],  for  training 
up  in  righteousness."  It  appears  to  me  impossible 
to  establish,  from  the  Greek  text  alone,  so  as  to 
preclude  all  fair  objection,  either  side  of  the  agi- 
tated question,  whether  SrsoTrvsvCTo^  agrees  immedi- 
ately with  'T'aa'a  y^ct.q)y]^  or  is  (as  it  is  translated 
in  the  common  version  and  in  many  others)  a 
part  of  the  predicate.  But  I  apprehend  that  the 
scale  is  turned  in  favor  of  the  other  construction 
by  the  evidence  of  the  venerable  Sp*iac  Version, 
whose  antiquity  is  almost,  if  not  quite,  apostolic. 
It  reads,  "  And  that,  from  thy  childhood,  thou  hast 
known  the  holy  books,"  &c. — "  for  every  writing 
which  has  been  "^Titten  by  the  Spirit  is  valuable 
foT  instruction,"  &c.  The  Vulgate  confirms  this 
interpretation :    "  Omnis  scriptura  divinitus  inspi- 


THE    SCKIPTURES.  153 

rata,  iitilis  est  ad  docendiim,"  &c.  It  is  evident 
that  tlie  Apostle,  in  v.  16,  resumes  distribiitively 
wliat  lie  had  before  advanced  collectively ;  so  that 
"  every  writing  divinely  inspired  "  is  a  description 
by  which  the  Apostle  designates  eaeli  and  every  one 
of  the  writings  comprised  under  the  well-nnderstood 
collective  denomination,  Ta  is^k  y^xij/ixura,  the  holy 
writings.  Timothy,  and  every  contemporary  Jew 
or  Christian,  needed  no  explanation  of  this  phrase. 
They  knew  it^  as  one  of  the  most  common  terms  of 
usage,  to  denote  the  y^a:pai,  writlnc/s,  or  scrijptures^ 
to  which  the  Lord  Jesus  was  in  the  habit  of  refer- 
ring, as  to  the  ultimate  divine  authority  (e.  g.  Mat, 
xxii.  29,  xxvi.  S-l,  Luke  xxiv.  32,)  the  searching  of 
which  he  enjoined  (John  v.  39,)  and  which  it  is 
impossible  to  suppose,  with  any  shadow  of  reason, 
that  he  did  not  design  to  use  in  the  sense  in  which 
he  knew  that  all  his  hearers  w^ould  understand  him ; 
namely,  as  expressive  of  the  whole  sacred  canon  of 
the  Jews,  for  to  them  "  were  entrusted  the  oracles 
of  God,"  Eom."  iii.  2.)  The  general  tenor  of  the 
l^Qw  Testament  most  clearly  recognizes,  under  these 
descriptions,  the  whole  received  Scriptures  of  the 
Jewish  nation ;  and,  when  a  particular  passage  is 
cited,  it  is  usual  to  refer  to  it  in  the  singular 
number  :  ^vy^^^ori,  t]  /pacpTj  "avr'/^,  and  eVs^a  7^«.(T)'/],  the 
^vr^ting,  or  scripture^  this  scriptwe^  another  scrirp- 
ture,  (John  xix.  24,  37.  Mark  xii.  10.) 
Thus  the  passage  before  us,  though  we  adopt 


154:  INSPIRATION    OF 

that  construction  of  ^soTfvsvc'ro?,  wliicli  Unitarians 
generally  approve,  furnishes  the  strongest  testimony 
to  the  insjyio'ation  of  each  and  every  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  importance  of  this  con- 
clusion, in  relation  to  our  present  subject,  and  to 
every  other  part  of  the  controversy  with  the  Uni- 
tarians, needs  not  to  be  pointed  out." — SmitJis 
Testimony  to  the  MesiaJi^  Yol.  i.  p.  27,  2S. 

It  is  satisfactory  to  find,  that  even  admitting  the 
translation  of  the  passage  preferred  by  Dr.  S.  to  be 
irrefragably  proved,  it  has  no  color  of  opposition 
to  plenary  verbal  inspiration.  This  translation,  as 
plainly  as  the  other,  asserts  the  verbal  inspiration 
of  every  thing  inspired.  "Every  writing  divinely 
inspired,"  verbally  declares  that  the  writing,  that 
is,  the  words  written,  are  inspired.  If  any  writing 
is  inspired,  the  words  must  of  necessity  be  inspired, 
because  the  words  are  the  writing.  The  Syriac 
Translation  implies  this  as  fully  as  ours.  The  Bible 
is  said  to  be  a  lointing  written  ly  the  Sjnrit  of  God. 
A  more  express  attestation  of  verbal  inspiration 
could  not  be  found. 

The  only  point  of  view,  then,  in  which  we  need 
examine  this  translation,  is  its  bearing  on  the 
Unitarian  controversy.  And  it  is  very  satisfactory 
to  find,  that  though  he  j^i'efers  the  Unitarian  con- 
struction of  this  verse.  Dr.  Smith  decidedly  opposes 
the  Unitarian  import  of  it.  ^Vliile,  therefore,  I 
am  happy  to  find  Dr.  Smith  and  myself  on  the 


THE    SCEIPTUItES.  155 

same  side  on  tliis  iiiii^ortant  matter,  I  v/ill  take  the 
liberty  to  suggest  to  him  a  few  things  to  invalidate 
the  reasons  of  his  preference  of  the  Unitarian  con- 
struction of  this  verse,  lliongh  I  blame  him  very 
much  for  his  excessive  partiality  for  learned  men, 
and  his  pernicious  theorising  on  Scripture,— tliat 
he  is  a  learned,  ingenious,  and  deeply  read  theolo- 
gian, I  cheerfully  acknov>dedge,  and  I  would  gladly 
bring  him  over  altogether  to  tlie  right  side.  I 
observe  then,  in  the  iirst  place,  that  if  the  ambi- 
guity, in  the  construction  of  this  passage,  exists  to 
the  extent  that  Dr.  Smith  alleges,  that  is  to  say,  if 
there  be  a  passage  in  Scripture  so  ambiguous,  that 
neither  the  connexion,  nor  any  other  resource, 
furnished  by  the  Scriptures  themselves,  will  fix  its 
definite  meaning,  I  maintain  that  we  are  so  far 
without  revelation,  and  that  such  a  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture mio;ht  as  well  never  have  been  written.  There 
may  be,  and  there  confessedly  are,  passages  in  the 
Bible,  which  are  not  understood.  But  it  is  not 
because  they  contain  in  themselves  vvdiat  necessarily 
renders  them  unintelligible,  as  Dr.  Smith  virtually 
asserts  respecting  the  passage  in  question;  an 
assertion,  than  which  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  a 
greater  indignity  to  the  language  of  Holy  AV^rit. 
If  the  Scriptures  are  really  such  a  book,  a  pope  we 
must  have.  Sm-ely  the  word  of  God  was  not  given 
but  to  be  understood !  And  if  it  does  not  afiford 
evidence  to  explain  itself,  it  is  not  sufficieTit. 


150  TN5PIKATI0N    OF 

I  remark  fnrtlier,  that  the  Svriac  version,  and 
the  nnanimoiis  consent  of  all  uninspired  versions, 
cannot  legitimately  be  acknowledged  as  authority 
to  fix  the  meaning  of  phraseology  indeterminate  in 
itself.  Tliey  afford  ns  notliing  more  than  the  opin- 
ion of  tlieir  authors  ;  and  though  they  lived  among 
the  Apostles,  if  they  are  not  inspired,  they  may 
have  been  mistaken.  To  justify  an  opinion  as  hav- 
ing apostolic  authority,  it  is  not  enough  to  show 
that  it  was  professed  by  some  person  in  the  age  of 
the  Apostles ;  it  must  be  slio^vn  to  have  been 
approved  by  the  Apostles.  Some  opinions  we 
know  to  have  been  entertained  by  Christians  in 
the  very  times  of  the  Apostles,  which  were  con- 
trary to  the  apostolic  doctrine.  I  care  not  how 
high  is  the  date  of  the  Syriac  version ;  if  it  is  not 
insph-ed,  I  w^ill  take  the  liberty  of  questioning  its 
propriety.  Still  less  can  I  admit  the  paran_iount 
authority  of  the  Yulgate.  If  we  are  not  prepared 
to  adopt  all  its  errors,  let  us  not  claim  its  patronage 
in  a  particular  emergency.  A  degree  of  counte- 
nance may,  no  doubt,  be  claimed  from  reputable 
translations,  which  will  be  increased  by  the  an- 
tiquity, learning,  and  impartiality  of  the  authors. 
But  it  never  can  be  legitim^ately  allowed  to  be 
decisive.  Such  authority  is  to  be  referred  to,  not 
BO  much  to  establish  an  opinion,  as  to  show  that  a 
translation  has  not  been  made  for  the  occasion.  If, 
in  supporting  any  of  my  opinions,  I  diifer  from  the 


THE   SCRTPTURES.  15^ 

common  version  of  tlie  Scriptures,  a  suspicion  ouglit 
to  rest  npon  every  man's  mind,  that  I  have  made 
my  transhation  to  cover  my  opinion.  Kow,  to  do 
away  this  impression,  it  is  very  material  for  me  to 
show  that  I  am  not  singular  in  the  translation  ;  and 
that  others,  well  acquainted  with  the  language, 
have  adopted  the  same  interpretation,  although 
they  did  not  entertain  such  opinion.  In  this  way, 
if  the  Syriac  verson  actually  favored  the  Unitarian 
sentiment  with  respect  to  insim-ation,  it  would  be 
of  very  great  importance  for  them  to  allege  its 
anthority.  Such  a  nse  may  be  made  of  the  autho- 
rity of  versions ;  but  a  casting  vote  never  can  be 
justly  allowed  them.  If,  then,  it  is  impossible  to 
ascertain  the  construction  of  these  words  from  the 
text  itself,  no  uninspired  version  can  ever  authori- 
tatively fix  it. 

If  the  translation  is  to  be  made  from  the  words 
of  the  common  copies,  there  seems  no  difficulty  in 
the  construction.  The  substantive  verb  is  naturally 
to  be  understood  to  each  of  the  adjectives.  What 
reason  can  be  given  for  giving  it  to  one,  and  with- 
holding it  from  the  other  ?  And  why  should  we 
adopt  a  various  reading  in  order  to  create  a  diffi- 
culty ?  If  the  substantive  verb  is  to  be  taken  into 
the  text  between  the  two  adjectives,  it  is  naturally 
to  be  construed  with  the  first,  and  understood  to 
the  last.  It  is  not  the  natural  darkness  of  the  con- 
struction that  has  caused  the  various  interpretation 


158  IXSnilATION    OF 

of  tills  passage,  but  clisaftection  to  tlie  truth  con- 
tained in  it.  Men  vrlio  are  conscions  of  holding 
opinions  that  the  Scriptures  condemn,  yet  are  anx- 
ious to  obtain  the  sanction  of  their  authority  ;  or  at 
least,  to  remove  the  most  conspicuous  passages  that 
oppose  them,  Vv'ould  gladly  limit  the  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Book.  All  their  eiforts,  then,  are  directed 
to  peryert  the  testimony  of  this  glorious  declaration. 
If  they  cannot  force  it  to  preyaricate  or  bear  false 
yritness,  nothing  can  protect  their  impious  senti- 
ments from  the  open  reprobation  of  God. 

It  may  be  observed  also,  that  according  to  the 
Uuitarian  construction,  the  particle  hy  is  rather 
cumbersome  than  useful.  It  is  very  difficult  to 
dispose  of  it  to  any  good  purpose,  or  to  assign  it  an 
office  in  which  it  will  not  be  troublesome  as  well 
as  useless.  In  the  ti-anslation,  "  for  all  divinely 
inspired  Scripture  is  even  useful,"  the  word  even., 
instead  of  contril)uting  a  portion  to  the  sense,  essen- 
tially misrepresents  it.  To  translate  the  conjunc- 
tion ky  also^  as  Dr.  S.  does,  is  not  so  bad,  but  still 
not  at  all  satisfactory.  Its  application  is  dubious, 
■ — and  its  import  not  easily  perceived.  It  is  vv'ell 
known  that  on  some  occasions,  it  will  admit  this 
translation  ;  but  to  argue,  that  because  it  ought,  in 
some  places,  to  have  this  acceptation,  it  may  have 
it  in  any  other,  accordmg  as  it  may  suit  the  pur- 
poses of  the  critic,  is  not  sound  criticism.  To 
justify  such  a  signification  here,  it  is  not  enough  to 


THE   SCKIPTURES.  169 

produce  examples  in  wliicli  it  lias  such  a  significa- 
tion ;  it  is  necessary  also,  to  produce  the  authority 
of  similar  constructions.  This  is  a  canon  of  criti- 
cism which  may  be  easily  defended  ; — a  canon, 
however,  little  respected  by  Biblical  interpreters. 
What  word  does  Dr.  S.  mean  the  conjunction  to 
affect  ?  What  is  the  precise  effect  he  understands 
it  to  have  on  the  meaning  ?  This  unfortunate  l:y 
in  the  Unitarian  construction,  is  treated  as  poor 
Battier  was  treated  in  the  10th  Hussars.  The  royal 
commission,  indeed,  has  given  it  a  seat  at  the  mess, 
but  all  the  dignity  of" that  commission  has  failed  to 
procure  the  attention  of  the  company.  It  is  doomed 
to  sit  unregarded ; — it  speaks,  but  no  one  hears. 

Though  I  perfectly  agree  with  the  learned  writer, 
that  the  Unitarian  interpretation  does  not  follow 
from  the  admission  of  the  Unitarian  construction 
of  this  verse,  yet,  for  the  above  reasons,  I  prefer 
the  common  translation.  And  though  we  can  still 
maintain  the  fortress,  though  we  give  up  this  out- 
work, I  do  not  think  w^e  ought  to  give  up  the  most 
unimportant  battery,  while  we  are  able  to  fire  a 
gun  from  it.  A  consciousness  of  sufficient  remain- 
ing resources,  and  an  affectation  of  excessive  can- 
dor, may  influence  us  sometimes  to  give  up  to  the 
adversary  what  is  perfectly  tenable.  It  is  right  to 
make  concessions  for  a  moment,  to  give  i\\^  enemy 
a  more  signal  defeat.  But  an  inch  of  Scriptural 
ground  is  worth  eternal  war. 


1(>0  T>;SPIK.\TION    OF 

Let  us  now  view  this  passage  on  tlie  Unitarian 
construction.  And  while  I  agree  with  the  learned 
writer  in  the  result,  I  difier  from  him  in  the  way 
of  obtaining  that  result.  I  have  objections  to  his 
translation,  to  his  paraphrase,  and  to  his  reasoning. 
His  translation  is  at  variance  with  his  reasoning. 
He  very  justly  argues  that  the  phrase  ^ro^cra  ypa^ps-] 
refers  to  every  book  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  being 
notoriously  the  most  appropriated  to  that  sen^e. 
If  so,  eve7y  writing  is  not  adequate  as  a  translation 
of  the  above  phrase.  Though  writing  is  a  literal 
translation  of  y^o.^f],  it  is  not  a  j^roper,  because  not 
a  determinate  translation  of  it  here.  For,  as  in  the 
original,  y^a^'f\  is  here  taken  in  its  appropriate 
sense,  its  translation  must  correspond  to  it,  not  in 
its  literal,  but  in  its  appropriate  sense.  As  writing 
has  not  such  an  appropriation  in  English,  it  is  not 
an  adequate  translation,  although  perfectly  literal. 
Scrii^ture  ought  to  have  been  the  word,  for  it  has 
in  English  exactly  the  same  appropriated  meaning 
that  yi^^ri  has  in  the  original.  There  is  no  greater 
mistake  than  to  suppose  that  a  translation  is  good, 
according  as  it  is  literal.  It  may  be  asserted,  with- 
out exception,  that  a  literal  translation  of  any  book 
cannot  be  a  faithful  one.  If  the  word  is  not  used 
in  its  literal  sense  in  the  original,  it  is  a  mistransla- 
tion of  it  to  translate  it  literally.  This  is  a  canon 
of  Biblical  interpretation  of  universal  application, 
and  of  the  srreatest  moment — a  canon  not  onlv  often 


THE    SCRirTURKS.  161 

violated,  but  to  violate  which,  is,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  some  translators,  the  highest  praise.  A 
translation  of  this  kind,  instead  of  conveying  the 
original  with  additional  light,  is  perfectly  nnintelli- 
gible.  When  ta  iera  grammata  is  translated  holy 
lorltings^  as  Dr.  S.  translates  the  words,  there  is 
not  the  smallest  objection ;  because  what  is  inde- 
fuiite  in  thQ  Vv'ord  writings^  is  rendered  completely 
definite  by  the  epithet  holy.  His  language  can 
bear  this,  and  holy  vjri%  and  the  sacred  writings^ 
are  phrases  as  definite  as  the  appropriated  word 
Scriptures, 

Dr.  Smitli  justly  understands  Theopneustos  as 
descriptive  of  pasa  graphe.  But  it  is  not  descrip- 
tive of  it  when  translated  every  writing  /  because 
every  writing  is  not  TheopneuMos^  inspired.  It  is 
descriptive  of  graphe  only  in  the  a]3propriated  sense 
of  that  term.  Every  scripture  is  divinely  inspired, 
but  every  writing  is  not.  According  to  Dr.  Smith's 
translation,  it  is  essentially  necessary  to  understand 
Theopneustos  not  as  a  description,  but  as  a  limita- 
tion— ^not  every  meriting,  because  it  is  divinely 
inspired,  but  every  writing  that  is  inspired,  or  as 
far  as  it  is  inspired.  Dr.  Smith's  translation,  then, 
is  at  v\'ar  with  his  sense  of  the  passage. 

I  have  an  objection  also  to  his  paraphrase.  Tlie 
supplementary  matter  connecting ^jxr^^^^c^  graphe  viiih. 
the  assertion  is  cUvinely  inspired^  ought  not  to  be 
which  ?'.<?,  but  hecavss  it  ?'.<?,  or  a-s  hcivg^  or  some 


162  INSPIRATION   OF 

j^lirase  assigning  a  reason.  Tlie  Yulgate  indeed, 
adopts  tliis  construction,  but  it  does  not  sanction 
this  interpretation.  "  Oinnis  Scrij^tura  dlvinltus 
iiisj^irata^'^  ought  not  to  be  translated,  "  all  Scrip- 
ture which  is  divinely  inspired,"  but  "  all  Scrip- 
ture divinely  inspired,"  and  should  be  paraphrased 
as  it  is  divinely  inspired,  or  by  some  supplemen- 
tary words  indicative  of  description.  As  the  Yul- 
gate does  not  design  to  exclude  the  inspiration 
from  any  part  of  Scripture,  but  to  assign  the  reason 
of  the  reading  of  it  being  profitable,  the  supplement 
should  not  be  a  limiting  phrase,  but  a  descriptive 
one.  "  All  Scripture,  hccause  it  is  inspired  by  God, 
is  profitable,"  &c.  The  Syriac  version  is  not  an 
exact  translation,  according  to  any  reading  of  the 
text ;  it  is  rather  a  •paraphrase.  If,  in  the  expres- 
sion, "evejy  writing  which  has  been  written  by 
the  Spirit,"  the  phrase  eve7y  loriting  is  understood 
in  its  general  sense,  then  the  passage  cannot  be 
descriptive ;  for  every  wi'iting  is  not  divinely 
inspired.  If  by  every  writing  is  meant  every 
book  of  Scri]3ture,  as  Dr.  Smith  seems  to  under- 
stand the  translation,  then  the  translation  into 
English  should  not  have  been  evei^y  vjritmg^  but 
every  scripture. 

Dr.  Smith  states,  very  correctly,  that  the  terms 
graphe^  graj)hai^  and  iera  graminata^  are  all  appro- 
priated, in  the  most  decided  and  notorious  manner, 
to  signify  the  inspired  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 


THE   PCRTPTUKES.  lf)3 

nicnt ;  and  lie  reasons,  very  justly,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible for  it  to  Lave  any  other  signification  here, 
as  Timothy,  and  every  Jew  or  Christian,  needed  no 
explanation  of  these  phrases.  This  is  a  most  deci- 
sive and  conclusive  argument  against  all  those  who, 
^vith  Dr.  Smith  himself,  object  to  the  inspiration 
of  particular  jjassages  in  books  confessedly  inspired ; 
l^ut  I  object  to  the  conclusiveness  of  his  reasoning, 
wlien  he  rests  on  this  feet,  the  certainty  of  the 
inspiration  of  "  each  and  every  of  the  1)Ooks  of  the 
Old  Testament."  In  my  judgment,  the  decidedly 
appropriated  sense  of  the  term  gra^he^  can  afford 
no  assistance  in  proving  that  these  books  were 
inspired.  A  Unitarian  may  reply,  "  I  fully  grant 
that  these  phrases  designate  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  I  deny  that  '  this  admits  their 
inspiration.  For  anything  that  can  lie  learned 
from  the  appropriations,  there  may  not  be  a  line 
of  inspiration  in  the  whole."  ISTow,  to  such  a 
man  I  have  nothing  to  reply.  AYith  respect  to 
the  passage  under  consideration,  the  Unitarian 
might  observe,  "I  acknowledge  that  Paul  here 
uses  the  term  graplie  it  its  appropriated  sense ;  he 
does  not,  however,  asserts  inspiration  of  cdl  Scrip- 
ture^ but  that  all  Scriptnre  which  is  inspired  is 
profitable,"  etc.  ISTow,  that  his  reasoning  is  false, 
is  not  proved  by  reference  to  the  appropriated 
meaning  of  graplie^  nor  from  the  paraphrase  by 
which  he  expresses  his  meaning  of  the  text,  in 


164  i:\SPIKATIOii    OF 

vrhich  also  he  agrees  vritli  Dr.  Smith,  but  hj  show- 
ing, as  I  have  done,  the  true  and  natural  supple- 
mentary matter  to  be  descriptive,  and  not  limiting. 
That  this  interpretation  of  the  Imitarian  is  false, 
might  also  be  solidly  proved  by  the  absurdity  to 
which  it  leads.  It  supposes  that  there  must  be  a 
standard  or  criterion  by  which,  in  reading  the 
Scriptures,  we  may  distinguish  what  is  inspired 
from  what  is  uninspired.  If  there  is  no  such  crite- 
rion. Vie  cannot  make  the  proper  use  of  what  is 
inspired.  ITow,  as  no  such  criterion  is  given  in 
Scripture,  there  cannot  be  need  for  such  criterion. 
This  is  an'  axiom — the  man  who  refuses  it  is  not 
worth  reasoning  with  ;  he  ought  to  be  given  up  as 
a  hypochondriac,  or  as  a  man  who  perversely 
denies  first  principles,  without  which  there  can  be 
no  reasoning.  If  it*  is  said  that  we  may  form  a 
criterion  for  ourselves,  I  reply  that  such  criterion 
may  be  false  ;  and  at  best,  is  but  human,  and  can 
have  no  authority  with  ourselves,  and  much  less 
with  others. 

'^Yllile,  therefore,  I  hold  with  Dr.  Smith,  "  that 
the  passage  before  us,  though  we  adopt  that  con- 
struction of  Theopneustos  which  Unitarians  gen- 
erally approve,  furnishes  the  strongest  testimony  to 
the  insjnratioii  of  each  and  every  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,"  I  do  not  think  that  the  strength 
of  the  evidence  is  brought  out  in  his  translation,  or 
paraphrase  or  reasoning. 


THE  SCKirjCKKS.  lt>i> 


But  it  is  not  only  of  advantage,  it  seems,  to  liavc 
tlie  Bible  disencumbered  of  a  useless  load  of  mspw 
ration  as  to  words;  it  will  be  still  more  ennnently 
improTed  by  expelling  inspiration  from  those  trivial 
pnimportant  passages,  in  which  the  inspired  writers 
have  impertinently  foisted  in  matters  too  undigni- 
fied for  divine  iniluences.  Dr.  S.  quotes  the  follow- 
ing passage  from  Parry  on  Inspiration.^  ^  _ 

"  If  the  inspiration  and  guidance  of  the  Spirit, 
respecting  the  writers   of    the    Sew   Testament, 
extended  only  to  what  appears  to  bo  its  proper 
province,  matters  of  a  religions  and  moral  nature; 
then  there  is  no  necessity  to  ask,  whether  eva-y 
thmg  contamed  in  their  writings  were  suggested 
immediately  by  the  Spirit  or  not;  whether  Lnke 
was  inspired  to  say,  that  the.  ship  in  which  he 
sailed  with  Paul  was  wrecked  on  the  island  ot 
Melita,   (Acts  xxviii.   1,)    or  whether   Paul  was 
under   the   guidance  of  the  Spirit,   m   directing 
Timothy  to  bring  with  him  the  cloak  wt>ch  he 
left  at  Troas,  and  the  books,  but   especiaUy  the 


parchments,   (2  Tim.  iv.  13;)   for   the  answer  is 
ions,  these  were  not  things  of  a  religious  nature. 


ob\ 


and  no  inspiration  was  necessary  concerning  them. 
Tlie  inspired  writers  sometimes  mention  common 
occurrences  or  thing's  in  an  incidental  manner, 
as  any  other  plain  and  fathful  men  might  do 
Althoucrh,  therefore,  such  things  may  be  toiind 
in  parts  of  the   evangelic  history,  or  in  epistles 


166  INSPIRATION   OF 

addressed  to  cliiirclies  or  individiials,  and  may 
stand  connected  with  important  declarations  con- 
cerning Christian  doctrine  or  duty,  yet  it  is  not 
necessaiy  to  sui)pose  that  they  were  nnder  any 
mijpernatural  influence  in  mentioning  such  common 
or  civil  affairs,  though  they  were,  as  to  all  the 
sentiments  they  inculcated  respecting  religion." — 
Vol.  jp.  m. 

Xow,  to  refute  this  impious  theory,  nothing 
more  is  required  than  to  quote  Dr.  S.'s  observa- 
tions on  2  Tim.  iii.  15, 16  ;  and  to  me  it  is  perfectly 
astonishing  that  the  learned  writer  did  not  see  the 
inconsistency  between  this  and  his  views  of  that 
imjDortant  passage.  K  "each  and  every  of  the 
books  of  Scripture"  are  inspired,  how  is^  it  that 
any  part  of  these  books  can  be  uninspired  ?  This 
is  a  problem  that  Dr.  S.  must  solve,  for  he  holds 
both  sides  of  the  contradiction.  If  "  all  Scripture  " 
is  inspired,  nothing  uninspired  can  belong  to 
's\Titings  called  Scripture.  ^Ve  have  only  to 
inquire,  then,  whether  such  things  are  foimd  in 
books  called  Scripture,  of  v\^hich,  without  exception, 
inspiration  is  asserted ;  but  to  say  that  a  book  is 
inspired,  and  that  a  part  of  it  is  unin62:>ired,  is  a 
contradiction.  Tliat  may  be  true  of  a  part  which 
is  not  true  of  the  whole ;  but  what  is  true  of  the 
whole,  must  be  true  of  every  part.  The  doctrine 
here  inculcated,  then,  is  not  only  untrue,  but 
absurd. 


THE    SCRIPTUKES.  167 

The  proper  province  of  inspiration,  as  we  are 
told,  is  coniined  to  things  of  a  moral  and  religions 
natnre.  Tlie  proper  province  of  inspiration,  I 
maintain,  is  every  part  of  a  book  declared  by  God 
to  be  insj^ired.  It  is  the  proper  province  of  every 
writer  to  be  pledged  for  every  thing  in  the  book 
which  he  authenticates  by  his  name.  Would  I 
permit  an  amanuensis  to  foist  in  under  my  name, 
every  thing  he  chose  to  communicate  to  the  public  ? 
And  if  I  adopt  any  thing  from  him,  am  I  not 
pledged  for  it  as  my  own?  Shall  the  inspired 
Avriters,  then,  take  a  liberty  with  God  that  would 
be  utterly  unwarrantable  wdth  man  ?  Is  it  not  the 
province  of  God  to  be  the  Author  of  every  part  of 
the  book  which  He  recos^nizes  as  His  own  writino;  ? 
For  an  amanuensis  to  foist  in  any  thing  not 
inspired,  w^ould  be  downright  forgery.  If  there 
are  some  things  miiit  for  inspu'ation,  such  things 
should  not  have  a  place  among  things  inspired,  so 
as  to  make  a  part  of  a  book  of  which  inspiration  is, 
without  exception,  asserted.  Had  God  permitted 
such  a  heterogeneous  mixture  to  be  given  to  the 
world,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  to 
suppose,  he  would  not  have  allowed  the  whole  to  be 
designated  by  his  name.  And  he  would  doubtless 
have  given  a  criterion  to  distinguish  what  is  divine 
from  what  is  human.  That  no  such  thing  is  the 
case,  beside  the  absurdity  of  the  thing,  there  is  the 
highest  evidence  in  the  fact,  that  no  such  criterion 


168  INSriiiATIO^;    OF 

is  given  by  God.  But  what  God  lias  not  done  Mr. 
Parry  has  kindly  condescended  to  perform  for  Ilim. 
Lupions  mortal !  will  men  never  learn  to  give  tlie 
ALniglity  His  own  place?  Will  the  Pharisees 
never  cease,  by  their  traditions,  to  make  void  the 
law  of  God  ?  Were  such  a  discrimination  necessary 
in  the  book  of  God,  vrould  it  be  left  to  men  to  form 
the  criterion  ?  K  such  a  criterion  is  necessary  in 
reading  the  Scriptures,  and  if  no  such  criterion  is 
given,  the  Scriptures  are  an  insufficient  rule.  Why 
shall  we  not,  then,  admit  the  traditions  of  papal 
Pome,  as  well  as  the  theories  of  presumptuous  Pro- 
testant theologians  ?  If  Mr.  Parry  has  a  right  to 
make  one  cidterion,  has  not  Dr.  Priestly  a  right  to 
make  another  ?  If  the  former  is  permitted,  by  his 
theory,  to  purge  the  Scriptures  of  certain  useless 
though  harmless  excrescences,  shaU  not  the  latter 
be  equally  entitled  to  devise  a  theory,  that  will 
expel  all  doctrines  supposed  to  be  derogatory  to 
human  understandino;  ?  If  the  smallest  license  of 
this  kind  is  permitted,  nothing  shall  be  left  as  God's 
in  the  Scriptures  that  atheistical  impud-ence  shaU 
think  fit  to  question.  The  inspiration  of  Luke  in 
writing  the  account  of  the  ship^Teck,  and  that  of 
Paul  in  'VYi'iting  for  the  cloak  and  parchments,  stand 
on  the  same  foundation  as  their  inspiration  in 
recording  the  plan  of  salvation.  JSTor  are  these 
facts,  and  all  similar  ones,  destitute  of  religious 
instruction.     But  to  be  able  to  show  this  is  not 


TKE   SCKirXURES.  169 

necessary  for  the  vindication  of  their  inspiration. 
That  they  are  inspired,  is  ascertained  by  their 
being  found  in  a  book  that  is  divinely  attested  as 
inspired.  The  plan  that  sound  criticism  would 
pm-sue,  is  not  to  read  in  order  to  discriminate  in 
the  Scriptui-es  by  a  human  theory,  v*diat  is  divine 
from  what  is  human,  but  to  read  e\^ery  verse  as  the 
dictate  of  God,  and  endeavor  to  find  out  the  reli- 
gious use  that  the  Holy  Spirit  intended  that  we 
should  derive  from  it.  Admitting  that  in  some 
things  we  should  not  be  successful,  whether  is  it 
more  rational  to  reject  such  things  as  not  being- 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  or  to  suppose  that  the 
divine  word  may  contain  treasures  that  we  are  not 
able  perfectly  to  exhaust  ?  Is  it  modest  to  say  that 
a  passage  can  have  no  religious  use,  if  we  caimot 
immediately  perceive  that  use?  No,  it  is  not 
modest,  it  is  atheistical,  it  is  irrational.  For  my 
own  part,  there  is  not  one  of  those  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  human  wisdom  has  objected  to,  in  v*'hich 
I  have  not  admired  the  divine  wisdom.  Instruction 
is  abundantly  conveyed  in  them,  and  in  a  way  that 
shows  the  Scriptures  to  be  divme.  One  of  these 
passages,  (2  Tim.  iv.  13,)  that  this  learned  v>a'iter  is 
unwilling  to  dignify  as  a  part  of  the  revelation  of 
God,  I  have  known  a  very  learned  clergyman  of 
the  Cliurcli  of  England,  Dr.  Stokes,  to  choose  as 
the  text  of  a  sermon,  which  he  preached  at  a  visi- 
tation of  the  Bishop  of  Derry.     That  in  which  Mr. 


170  LN'SPmATION    OF 

Parry  and  Dr.  Smith  can  find  no  religions  instruc- 
tion, Dr.  Stokes,  as  learned  as*  any  of  them,  con- 
sidered as  fall  of  instruction  for  all  the  clergy  of  a 
diocese.  And,  indeed,  many  of  these  things  that 
captiousness  and  learned  ignorance  are  so  much 
inclined  to  disrelish,  may  be  sho^vn  to  be  be  the  most 
conspicuous  indications  of  authenticity.  God  hath 
said,  "  the  meek  will  I  guide  in  judgment."  Is  it 
any  wonder,  then,  that  men  who  search  the  Scrip- 
tures with  the  arrogance  of  inquisitors,  should,  as 
to  tlie  msdom  and  application  of  many  things,  be 
sent  empty  away  ?  These  haughty  doctors  do  not 
sit  humbly  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  to  learn,  but  with 
their  self-invented  standards,  imj)iously  seat  them- 
selves above  him. 

"  This  view  of  the  subject,"  we  are  told,  "  will  also 
enable  a  plain  Christian,  in  reading  his  Kew  Testa- 
ment, to  distinguish  what  he  is  to  consider  as 
mspii'ed  truth.  Every  thing  which  the  Apostles 
have  written  or  taught  concerning  Christianity ; 
every  thing  which  teaches  him  a  religious  sentiment 
or  a  branch  of  duty,  he  must  consider  as  divinely 
true,  as  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  recorded  under 
the  direction  and  guidance  of  his  Spirit.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  he  should  inquire,  whether  what  the 
Apostles  taught  be  true.  All  that  he  has  to  search 
after  is,  then-  meaning ;  and  when  he  understands 
what  they  meant,  he  may  rest  assured,  that  meaning 
is  consistent  ^vith  the  will  of  God,  is  divine  infalli- 


THE    SCiili'TUiiES.  171 

ble  triitli.  The  testimony  of  men  who  s^^oke  and 
wrote  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  the  testimony  of  God 
Hbnself ;  and  the  testimony  of  the  God  of  Truth 
is  the  strongest,  and  most  indubitable  of  all  demon- 
stration." 

What  silliness,  arrogance,  and  imj^iety  is  here ! 
And  have  plain  Christians  for  eighteen  centuries 
been  readmg  the  Scriptures,  in  which  some  things 
are  divine,  and  some  things  are  human,  without 
any  criterion  to  distinguish?  Has  this  ingenious 
divine  succeeded  at  last  in  discovering  the  longi- 
tude ?  Was  the  world  in  darkness  till  the  rising 
of  this  star  ?  What  pity  that  the  author  had  not 
been  born  many  ages  sooner !  What  a  loss  to  man- 
kind, that  his  view  was  so  long  in  making  its 
appearance  !  The  want  of  this  discovery,  has  sub- 
jected plain  Christians  in  all  the  previous  ages  of 
Christianity,  to  confound  the  word  of  God  with 
what  is  merely  human.  Can  there  be  an  instance 
of  more  insufferable  arrogance  and  folly  ?  A  view^ 
that  suggests  itself  after  the  lapse  of  nearly  two 
thousand  years,  is  necessary  to  enable  men  to  read 
the  Bible  so  as  to  ascertain  what  in  it  belongs  to 
God !  Without  this,  men  cannot  properly  discrimi- 
nate what  is  the  Bible !  And  dare  any  wretched 
mortal  presume  to  give  a  criterion  of  discrimina- 
tion, in  determining  the  authority  of  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  book  of  God  ?  Impious  men,  give 
your  assistance  to  the  Almighty  and  the  All-wise 


172  LN^SPIKATION    01- 

in  (lie  plans  of  creation  and  providence,  wliere  your 
folly  cannot  mar  the  comfort  of  the  plain  Christian. 
But  foist  not  your  theories  on  the  volume  that  con- 
tains the  words  of  eternal  life,  and  the  instructions 
of  heavenly  wisdom.  Rob  not  the  milearned  Chris- 
tian of  the  cheering  conviction,  that  "  all  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  Let  your  impious 
ingenuity  gather  laurels  in  the  legitimate  fields  of 
invention  ;  try  your  powers  in  the  arts  and  sciences, 
and  by  your  sagacity  rival  the  glory  of  the  inventor 
of  the  steam  engine.  But  leave  the  poor  Christian 
his  Bible  whole  and  entire.  Seek  not  to  bewilder 
him  by  your  ignis  fatmis^ — darken  him  not  by 
your  discoveries, — impoverish  him  not,  by  bestow- 
ing on  him  your  riches.  I  have  no  language  in 
which  I  can  adequately  express  my  abhorrence  of 
such  a  theory,  wdiile  it  is  impossible  to  restrain 
emotions  of  contempt  for  its  folly.  What  blas- 
phemy and  absurdity  are  implied  in  the  idea  of 
a  plan  for  enabling  plain  Christians  to  distinguish 
what  belongs  to  God,  in  the  book  that  God  himself 
calls  his  own  word  !  Can  the  man  who  has  made, 
or  those  who  adopt  this  theory,  quarrel  with  Arians, 
who  give  a  similar  new  guide  to  direct  plain  Chris- 
tians to  discriminate  in  the  Scriptm-es  what  is  im- 
portant or  fundamental  truth,  from  what  is  uncer- 
tain, unimportant,  and  speculative  ?  ISTothing,  say 
they,  can  be  fundamental  truth,  but  what  is  found 
in  each  of  the  Gospels.     By  such  infidel  criterions, 


THE    SCRIPTUllES.  173 

men  contmiie  to  reprobate  everytliing  in  tlie  Scrip- 
tures wliicli  they  dislike. 

But  of  what  service  is  this  theory,  even  were  it 
admitted?  It  is  utterly  indefinite.  What  will 
appear  to  have  religious  instruction  to  one,  will 
have  none  to  another  ;  and  as  every  man  must  be 
guided  in  this  by  his  own  view,  every  one  will  have 
a  Bible  longer  or  shorter  according  to  his  opinions 
and  taste.  Besides,  on  such  points  there  will  be  no 
possibility  of  coming  to  one  judgment,  for  there 
is  no  common  standard.  That  which  these  two 
learned  theologians  look  on  as  so  utterly  without 
interest  we  have  seen  another  writer,  equally 
learned,  admirino-  as  a  manifestation  of  divine  wis- 
dom,  and  a  proof  of  the  divine  perfection  of  the 
Book  of  God.  And  how  easy  will  it  be,  according 
to  this  scheme,  to  discredit  any  part  of  Scripture, 
by  allegmg  that  it  is  only  a  m.atter  of  speculation, 
not  of  essential  faith  ?  Were  all  men  to  adopt  this 
theory,  they  would  be  as  far  as  ever  from  being 
brought  to  agreement  by  it. 

Upon  the  supposition,  that  the  "  common  and 
civil  affairs "  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  are  to 
be  considered  in  no  pomt  of  view  as  things  of  a 
religious  nature,  and  consequently  not  inspired, 
there  is  a  door  opened  for  the  introduction  into  the 
book  of  God,  of  as  much  unuispired  matter  as  the 
discretion  of  the  writers  might  think  fit  to  insert. 
If,  without  inspiration,  they  might  introduce  one 


1T4  IXSPIRATIO^^   OF 

sentence  or  observation,  tliey  miglit  have  added  a 
thousand  volumes  on  the  same  principle.  What 
havoc  does  this  theory  make  on  the  word  of  God  ? 

This  discovery  is  also  applied  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion, with  respect  to  the  inspiration  of  Paul,  in 
what  is  taught  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

''  Tlie  ahove  view  of  the  apostolic  inspiration  will 
likewise  enable  us,  as  I  apprehend,  to  understand 
the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  his 
first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  in  some 
verses  he  seems  to  speak  as  if  he  were  not  inspired, 
and  in  others  as  if  he  were.  Concerning  some 
thing's,  he  saith,  '  But  I  speak  this  by  permission, 
and  not  of  commandment : '  (ver.  6.)  and  again, 
'  I  have  no  commandment  of  the  Lord  ;  yet  I  give 
my  judgment,  as  one  that  hath  obtained  mercy  of 
the  Lord  to  be  faithful.'  (ver.  25.)  The  subject  of 
which  the  Apostle  here  delivers  his  opinion,  was 
a  matter  of  Christian  prudence,  in  which  the  Corin- 
thians had  desired  his  advice.  But  it  was  not  a 
part  of  religious  sentiment  or  practice  ;  it  was  not 
a  branch  of  Christian  doctrine  or  duty,  but  merely 
a  casuistical  cpiestion  of  prudence,  with  relation  to 
the  distress  which  persecution  then  occasioned. 
Paul,  therefore,  agreeably  to  their  request,  gives 
them  ills  opinion  as  a  laithful  man ;  but  he  guards 
them  against  supposing  that  he  was  imder  divine 
inspiration  in  that  o]:)inion,  lest  their  consciences 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  '  1Y5 

slioukl  be  sliaclded,  and  leaves  tliem  at  liberty  to 
follow  Ills  advice  or  not,  as  tliey  niiglit  find  con- 
venient. Yet  lie  intimates  that  lie  liad  '  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord '  as  a  Cliristian  teaclier ;  tliat  lie  bad 
not  said  anytliing  contrary  to  bis  will ;  and  tbat 
tbe  opinion  wbicb  be  gave  w^as,  on  tbe  wbole, 
advisable  '  in  tbe  present  distress.'  But  tbe  Apos- 
tle's declaration,  tbat  as  to  tbis  particular  matter, 
he  spoke  '  by  permission,  and  not  of  command- 
ment,' strongly  implies  tbat  in  other  things,  in 
things  really  of  a  religious  nature,  be  did  speak  by 
commandment  from  the  Lord.  Accordingly,  in 
the  same  chapter,  when  he  had  occasion  to  speak 
of  what  was  matter  of  moral  duty,  he  immediately 
claimed  to  be  under  divine  direction  in  what  he 
wi'ote.  '  And  unto  the  married  I  command,  yet 
not  I  but  the  Lord,  let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her 
husband,'  (1  Cor.  vii.  10.)  Tliis  would  be  a  breach  of 
one  of  the  chief  obligations  of  morality,  and  there- 
fore Paul  interdicts  it  under  the  divine  authority. 
Respecting  indifferent  things,  he  gave  his  judgment 
as  a  wise  and  faithful  friend;  but  respecting  the 
things  of  religion,  he  spake  and  "\AT.'ote  as  an  Apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ,  under  the  direction  and  guidance 
of  his  Spirit." — Parry'^s  Inquiry^  ^:>.  26 — 30. 

A  very  satisfactory  defence  of  tbe  inspiration  of 
the  Apostle  on  this  occasion,  may  be  found  in  the 
"  Aidhenticify  and  Inspiration  of  the  Sorijptures^'^ 
by  Mr.  Ilaldane, — a  defence   so   full,  as  in  my 


170  INSriEATIOX   OF 

aj^preh elision,  not  to  admit  a  single  additional 
observation.  But  in  order  to  cut  do^vn  these  impi- 
ous theories,  I  will,  for  argument's  sake,  admit  the 
failure,  and  show  that  even  this  does  not  concede 
the  consequence  "^vith  respect  to  the  plenary  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scrij)tures.  If  the  Apostle  guards 
us  against  the  supposition  of  his  inspiration  on  this 
point,  then,  doul:>tless,  everything  is  to  be  taken 
as  inspired,  when  there  is  no  such  intimation.  Tlie 
message  about  the  cloak  and  the  parchments,  the 
medical  advice  to  Timothy,  and  the  many  common 
and  trivial  incidents  mentioned  in  his  letters,  have 
their  claims  to  inspiration  more  fiilly  authenticated. 
All  we  lose  is  inspired  direction  on  one  point,  in 
which,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  inspiration  is 
expressly  disclaimed.  But  I  go  fiirther.  Admit- 
ting that  Paul  disclaims  inspiration  on  this  point,  I 
maintain  that  the  chapter  containing  the  admission, 
as  a  part  of  Scripture,  is  inspired  equally  with  any 
chapter  in  the  Bible.  Though  he  were  not  inspired 
to  decide  the  question,  he  was  ine2)ired  to  write 
the  account  which  he  has  given  of  the  matter.  If 
the  Apostle  has  told  us  that  he  is  not  inspired  on 
this  point,  he  has  been  inspired  to  make  the  denial. 
Not  a  line  has  he  written  in  that  chapter,  that  is 
not  immediately  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  Gamaliel 
was  not  inspired,  but  inspiration  has  recorded  his 
advice;  and  that  document,  as  recorded  by  tlie 
Holy  Spirit,  suggests  inspired  instruction  to  us. 


THE   SCETPTUr.EF 


1Y7 


Dr.  Smitli,  yon  are  engaged  in  a  very  nnlioly 
canse, — yonr  genins  and  learning  are  very  ill  em- 
ployed.    By  exclnding  the  Song  of  Solomon,  you 
unsettle  tlie  canon  of  Scripture,  and  unhinge  the 
mind  of  simx)le  Christians,  by  your  speculations. 
You  have  denied  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  word 
of  God,  and  every  kind  of  inspiration  to   all  the 
passages  that  any  one  may  choose  to  consider  not 
of  a  religious  or  moral  nature.     Your  speculations 
are  very  crude, — your  sentiments  are  self-contra- 
dictory,—and  your  half-formed  conceptions  show 
that  you  have  been  too  hasty  in  giving  your  opin- 
ions to  the  world.     You  must  go  back  or  forward, 
— stationary  you  cannot  remain.     Make  the  best 
use  of  your  learning,  but  humble  yourself  before 
God,  and  seek  more  of  the  teaching  of  his  Spirit 
in  the  reading  of  his  word.     Without  much  learn- 
ing, it  is  impossible  to  be  a  Biblical  critic;  but  all 
the  learning  of  Bently  will  be  insufficient,  without 
that  child-like  disposition  of  the  wisdom  given  from 
on  high,  which  teaches  to  cry,  Speak,  Lord,  for  thy 
servant  heareth.     Mary,  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  is  a 
better   model  for  a  Christian  minister   than  Dr. 
Haifner,  the  learned  professor  of  Strasburgh. 

As  might  be  expected,  the  unhallowed  theory  of 
inspiration  adopted  by  Dr.  Smith,  leads  to  a  devas- 
tation of  the  Scriptures,  to  which  no  bounds  can 
be  assigned.  It  is  a  gangrene  that  wiU  gradually 
spread  until  it  eats  the  very  vitals  of  Christianity. 


178  LS-SPIEATION    OF 

Inspiration  is  first  denied  to  the  words,  next  to  sncli 
tilings  as  relate  to  common  and  civil  affairs  :  from 
tliis  the  progress  to  the  non-inspiration  of  whole 
books  of  Scriptm-e  is  perfectly  easy  and  natural. 
So  fai',  it  appears,  the  disease  has  spread  its  bane- 
ful contagion  in  some  professedly  evangelical  wri- 
ters of  the  present  day.  An  article  has  appeared 
in  the  Ecclectic  Keview  for  Is'ovember,  1825,"^  in 
which  the  inspiration  of  several  books  of  Scri2)ture 
is  denied  ;  and,  as  has  been  stated  in  the  Edinburgh 
Christian  Instructor,  the  divine  origin  of  no  less 
than  one  hundred  and  forty  chapters  of  the  Bible 
has  been  impugned.  In  this  article  we  have  the 
following  passage. 

"  If  the  books  of  Proverbs  and  Solomon's  Song 
can  be  proved  to  be  inspired,  it  is  not,  we  appre- 
hend, on  the  ground  of  either  external  or  internal' 
evidence,  but  on  that  of  the  inspired  character 
attaching  to  their  royal  author.  That  God  was 
the  author  of  his  wisdom,  we  know,  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  author  of  all  true  v\'isdom,  the  inspirer 
of  '  all  good  counsels '  as  well  as  of  '  all  holy  desires 
and  just  works.'  But,  whether  he  was  'moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost '  in  pemiing  those  compositions, 
or  rather  in  speaking  the  proverbs  ascribed  to  him, 

*  In  the  first  edition  of  this  Eeview,  it  was  stated  that  Dr. 
Smith  was  said  to  be  the  author  of  this  paper.  But  that  gentle- 
man has  disclaimed  it.  I  wish  I  could  also  add  that  he  disclaims 
all  tampering  with  the  Sacred  Canon. 


THE    SCKIPTUEES.  1<9 


is  not  SO  certain  as  to  rank  among  articles  of  faith. 
There  appears  to  ns  lar  stronger  gronnd  for  hehev- 
ing  that  '  Ezra  the  priest,  the  scribe,'  acted  and 
spake  nnder  the  gnidance  of  inspiration  ;    bnt  it  is 
observable,  tliat  he  is  never  spoken  of  as  a  prophet, 
por  docs  he  lay  claim  to  that  character.    Even, 
however,  admitting  both  Solomon  and  Ezra  to  have 
been  inspired  men,  it  vronld  be  very  difficult,  wo 
conceive,  to  prove  that  this  character  attached  to 
the  anonvmons  authors  of  the  book  of  Esther  and 
the  books  of  Chronicles.     We  must  therefore  still 
contend,  that  these  books,  thongh  very  properly 
included  in  our  canon  as  both  autlientic  ana  true, 
'  are  possibly  not  inspired  ; '  and  that  the  question 
whether  they  are  so  or  not,  comes  withm  the  proper 
range  of  human  opinion." 

To  enter  into  the  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  these 
books,  so  rashly  questioned  by  this  writer,  would 
be  altor>=ether  a  waste  of  time  in  tliis  place,     it  wdl 
be  perfectly  sufficient  to  show  that  Dr.  Smith  can- 
not consistently  question  it.     The  business  may  be 
effiectually   done  from  his   own  admissions.     Jle 
strono-ly  contends  that  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16,  asserts  the 
inspkation  of  each  and  every  of  the  books  com- 
prised under  the  well  understood  collective  denomi- 
nation,  Ta  leva  grammata,  the  Holy  Writmgs: 
and  that  even  the  TJnitarian  construction  of  that 
passage  furnishes  "the  strongest  testimony  to  the 
inspiration  of  each  and  every  of  the  books  oi  the 


ISO  *     TXSPIEATTON   OF 

Old  Testament."  Is  ow  v\^e  have  only  to  ask,  were 
the  above  books  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  when 
Panl  wrote  that  Epistle,  in  order  to  be  completely 
assm-ed  that  they  are  inspired  ?  Were  they  a  part 
of  that  collection  called  Scripture,  the  Scriptures, 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  oracles  of  God,  &Q..  ?  If 
they  were,  their  inspiration  is  unquestionable.  To 
settle  this  question,  it  is  only  necessary  to  loiow 
the  Jewish  canon.  K  Dr.  S.  can  deny  the  inspira- 
tion of  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament  in  accord- 
ance with  his  own  explanation  of  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16, 
it  requires  more  perspicacity  than  I  possess,  to 
discern  the  agreement.  Shoidd  he  say  that  he  can- 
not see  anything  in  these  books  that  can  entitle 
them  to  the  denomination.  Scripture,  Holy  Writings, 
oracles  of  God,  &q.  ;  this  miglit  be  very  becoming 
in  the  mouth  of  an  infidel,  but  is  very  inconsistent 
in  the  m.outh  of  him  who  admits  them  to  be  a  part 
of  the  Jewish  canon ;  and  who  applies  the  assertion 
of  Paul,  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16,  to  every  part  of  that 
canon.  ISTothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  apply 
Paul's  assertion  of  inspiration  to  each  and  every 
book  of  a  well  known  collective  denomination,  and 
afterwards  to  refuse  it  to  certain  books  unquestiona- 
bly contained  in  that  collection.  Can  they  be  a 
part  of  the  collection,  and  not  deserve  the  com- 
mendation bestowed  on  every  part  of  that  collec- 
tion ?  How  can  he  refuse  them  the  denomination 
of  Scripture,  after  saying  that  the  meaning  of  that 


well  imdorstood  collective  denomination,  every  Jew 
and  CKristian  recognised  as  including  the  Scrip- 
tiires  to  luhich  Jesus  loas  in  the  habit  of  referring^ 
as  to  the  ultimate  divine  authority  ?  How  can  he 
question  the  inspiration  of  some  boolis  of  the  Old 
Testament,  after  asserting  that  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16, 
furnishes  the  strongest  testimony  to  the  inspiration 
of  each  and  every  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ?  Were  not  these  books,  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  ?  To  admit  the  canon  to  apply  (2  Tim. 
iii.  15,  16,)  to  every  book  of  the  canon,  and  yet 
to  question  the  inspiration  of  some  of  the  books 
of  that  canon,  would  be  an  instance  of  absurdity 
and  contradiction  to  be  matched  only  in  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation.  A  deist  might  con- 
sistently admit  the  canon,  and  labor  to  show,  from 
the  contents  of  any  particular  book,  that  it  could 
not  be  inspired.  This  would  not  only  be  consistent, 
but  effectually  serviceable  to  his  cause.  Could  he 
succeed  in  showing  that  a  certain  book  belongs  to 
the  collective  denomination  received  by  the  Jews 
as  Scripture ;  and  that  it  contained  evidence  of 
non-inspiration,  he  would  prove  Paul  a  liar,  (2  Tim. 
iii.  15,  16,)  and  discredit  the  inspiration  of  every 
other  book  in  the  canon.  If  one  part  of  the  volume 
attested  as  ins]3ired  by  Paul,  be  proved  to  be  unin- 
spired, his  attestation  is  worthless  with  respect  to 
every  book  in  the  collection.  Tlie  writer  of  this 
article  then,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  Dr.  Smith 


182  *  INSPIRATION    OF 

in  this  matter,  but  actually  labors  in  tlie  cause  of 
infidelity,  with  respect  to  Eevelation  i]i  general. 
As  far  as  the  authority  of  the  canon,  and  the  gene- 
ral attestation  of  inspiration  are  concerned,  both 
the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  whole  Scrip- 
tures are  subverted.  For  if  the  canon  has  admitted 
one  uninspired  book,  there  is  no  security  that  it 
has  not  admitted  more  ;  if  that  canon  has  been 
recognised  by  Jesus  with  one  uninspired  book, 
every  book  in  the  collection  may  be  uninspired, 
notwithstanding  that  recognition.  If  Paul  (2  Tim. 
iii.  15,  16,)  asserts  inspu-ation  of  the  whole  volume, 
while  one  is  miinspired,  no  book  in  the  volume  can 
be  allowed,  currency  from  his  stamp.  If  he  has 
sealed  one  forgery,  the  great  seals  should  be  put  in 
other  hands.  I  am  unwilling  to  suspect  Dr.  Smith 
of  secretly  designing  to  uridermine  the  authority  of 
the  Scripture  ;  yet  as  he  excludes  the  Songs  of  Solo- 
mon, I  cannot  clear  him  but  at  the  expense  of  his 
judgment.  I  cannot  see  how  a  man  of  sound 
understanding  can  apply  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16,  to  each 
and  every  book  of  a  collection,  v.diile  lie  denies 
inspiration  to  any  book,  unquestionably  contained 
in  that  collection. 

The  doctrine  of  the  writer  of  the  article  under 
review  is  a  perfect  absurdity.  He  tells  us  that 
the  book  of  Esther,  and  the  bool^  of  Chronicles, 
though  not  inspired,  are  "  very  properly  included 
in  our  canon,  as  both  authentic  and  true."     x^ow. 


THE   SCKIPTUEES.  183 

wliat  canon?  'Tlie  ansvver  is  self-evident, — canon 
of  Scripture.  Wliat  otlier  canon  is  the  wi-iter  here 
concerned  with  ?  Included  in  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, while  they  are  not  Scripture  !  Included  in  a 
canon  to  which  they  do  not  belong  !  Licluded  in 
the  canon  of  inspired  books,  while  they  are  not 
in^spired !  As  well  may  the  writer  be  included  in 
the  peerage,  wliile  he  is  not  a  peer,  or  be  enrolled 
among  crowned  heads,  while  he  is  but  a  subject. 
Include  the  vva-itings  of  men  among  the  writings  Qf 
God,  under  one  designation  !  Yv^as  ever  absurdity 
more  monstrous  ?  I  had  thought  that  the  Church 
of  Eome  had  exhausted  all  the  mines  of  absurdity  ; 
but  it  seemes  there  are  some  rich  veins  of  unappro- 
priated ore,  left  to  be  worked  by  Protestant  divines 
for  the  support  of  sophistry.  The  authenticity  of 
a  book  does  not  entitle  it  to  be  taken  into  the  canon 
of  Scripture.  Mathematical  demonstrations  have 
no  more  right  to  a  place  in  the  canon  of  the  holy 
books,  than  the  most  extravagant  romance.  They 
are  truths,  but  they  are  not  the  truths  written  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  for  the  spiritual  instruction  of 
mankind.  The  Jewish  canon  was  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  not  the  canon  of  authentic  books  in  gene- 
ral. Our  canon  is  the  canon  of  the  books  acknow- 
ledged as  inspired,  not  the  canon  of  all  true  history ; 
the  writer's  canon  would  include  all  the  authentic 
liistory  of  all  ages  -  and  countries.  Is  not  a  canon 
a  rule?     And  what  rule   ought   any  miinspired 


184  t:t:?pit?atton  of 

book  to  be  in  tlio  tilings  of  God  ?  JSTov/,  let  me  ask 
him,  could  you  seriously  think  of  placing  in  our 
Bible  all  authentic  records  ?  If  not,  why  do  you 
give  a  place  to  the  book  of  Esther,  and  the  books 
of  the  Chronicles,  which  in  your  opinion  are  unin- 
spired? Would  you  call  such  a  collection  the 
Bible,  the  Scriptures,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  &c.  ? 
I  thank  thee,  great  Jesus,  that  thou  hast  not  left 
the  making  of  our  Bible  to  the  ingenuity  of  learned 
doctors.  Much  of  thy  wisdom  iii  it,  appears  to 
them  to  be  folly.  Their  learning  is  employed  in 
mending  thy  work,  and  polishing  what  thy  hand 
has  left  unfinished.  Go,  vain  man,  enrol  thy  name 
with  that  of  him,  who,  in  the  arrogance  of  his 
wisdom,  boasted  that  he  could  have  given  a  better 
model  for  creaticjn,  had  he  been  admitted  to  the 
divine  counsels ;  but  let  the  Bible  alone.  It  is  the 
very  wisdom  of  wisdom.  The  blemishes  that  the 
wisdom  of  this  world  finds  in  it,  are  often  its 
greatest  excellencies. 

Let  us  examine  a  little  further  this  writer's  prin- 
ciples of  evidence,  as  furnished  by  this  passage. 
Though  he  denies  these  books  as  inspired,  he  ac- 
knowledges them  as  oMthentio  and  true.  ISTow, 
how  does  he  know  them  to  be  authentic  and  true, 
independently  of  their  being  a  part  of  the  canon, 
whose  inspiration  is  asserted  by  Paul  ?  ^Yho  is  the 
voucher  for  the  wiclced  Jeio  who  wrote  the  book  of 
Esther?     What  other  authentic  documents  prove 


THE   SCRIPTIIRES,  185 

every  part  of  tliis  narrative  ?  If  there  i8  a  single 
fact  in  it  nncorroborated  by  other  nnsiisi^icious  tes- 
timony, it  stand  imaccredited,  and  the  admitted 
wickedness  of  its  author  levels  it  to  the  rank  of  a 
romance.  If  it  was  written  by  a  wicked  Jew,  we 
may  be  sm-e  that  he  has  falsified.  We  cannot  de- 
pend on  a  single  tact  recorded.  Was  it  ever  kno^vn 
that  a  v/icked  Jew  could  write  a  page  of  truth,  when 
t]ie  interest  of  his  coimtry  would  be  served  by  a 
lie  ?  Believe  the  narrative  of  a  wicked  Jew  about 
his  religion  and  country  ?  Go,  then,  to  the  Jesuits 
for  the  authentic  annals  of  Christianity.  Swallow 
all  the  fables  of  po23ish  miracles.  Receive,  as  the 
truth  of  God,  every  adventure  in  the  lives  and  le- 
gends of  the  saints.  Then,  that  the  renowned  St. 
Dunstan  held  the  devil  by  the  nose,  at  the  door  of 
his  cave,  till  he  made  aU  the  rocks,  hills  and  valleys 
to  re-echo  his  horrible  bellowing,  wiU  become  a 
matter  of  sober  history. 

How  very  easily  is  this  writer  satisfied  with 
evidence  of  authenticity,  contrasted  with  his  obsti- 
nacy with  respect  to  inspiration.  Inspiration  he 
denies  to  these  books,  though  they  are  part  of  a 
canon,  to  the  whole  of  which  inspiration  is  ex- 
pressly ascribed  by  an  inspired  Apostle.  Tlieir 
authenticity  he  grants  without  evidence,  though, 
abstracted  from  their  inspiration,  there  is  the 
strongest  reason  to  suspect  tliem  of  imposture. 
J>row,  my  view  of  evidence  leads  me  to  admit  their 


186  INSPIRATION   OF 

inspiration,  from  tlieir  being  part  of  a  canon,  to 
every  part  of  wliicli  inspiration  is  ascribed  by  an 
Apostle,  and  to  recognize  tlieir  antlienticity,  as 
tliey  are  inspired.  Tlieii*  being  in  the  canon  is  tlie 
chief  proof  of  their  authenticity.  Of  the  authen- 
ticity of  some  books,  there  might  be  no  other 
evidence  than  the  fact  that  they  are  in  the  canon. 
I  know  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be 
true,  because  it  is  inspired ;  take  away  its  inspira- 
tion, and  you  remove  the  strongest  evidence  of  its 
authenticity. 

ITow,  instead  of  resting  the  whole  proof  of  the 
inspiration  of  these  books  on  the  general  inspired 
character  of  their  author,  I  rest  no  part  of  it  on 
this  ground.  Indeed,  the  evidence  that  Solomon 
was  an  inspired  man  is,  that  he  wrote  these  books. 
Even  had  we  known  him  to  have  unquestionably 
written  books  aclmowledged  by  all  to  be  inspired, 
we  would  not  rest  the  inspiration  of  these  books  on 
that  ground.  Tliis  argument  might  go  a  certain 
length  towards  proof;  but  the  main  evidence  would 
be,  that  these  books  were  a  part  of  the  Jewish 
canon,  recognised  by  our  Lord,  and  to  every  part 
of  which  inspiration  is  ascribed  by  the  Apostle 
Paul.  Tliere  may  be  additional  evidences,  external 
and  internal,  but  this  is  a  pivot  that,  without  any 
other  support,  will  bear  the  whole  weight  of  their 
inspiration.  That  Solomon  was  "moved  by  the 
Holy   Ghost   in   penning   these   compositions,"  •  is 


THE   SCKTPTUTES.  187 

matter  of  Christian  faitli,  as  well  as  tliat  Paul  was 
so  moved  to  write  his  epistles. 

It  would  be  still  more  difficult  in  this  writer's 
estimation  to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  book  of 
Esther,  and  the  books  of  Chronicles.  I^ot  in  the 
least  more  difficnlt.  Do  they  belong  to  the  canon, 
each  and  every  book  of  which  is  asserted  by  Panl 
to  be  inspired  \  Here  is  no  second  question.  The 
anthor  appears  to  labor  nnder  a  mistake  with 
respect  to  the  nature  of  the  proof  of  ins23iration. 
He  appears  to  make  little  or  no  account  of  the 
authority  of  the  canon,  though  authenticated  by  the 
highest  possible  sanction.  After  the  fullest  evidence 
of  such  a  title,  other  evidence,  external  and  internal, 
seems  to  be  considered  as  essential  before  its  recog- 
nition. Kow,  to  me  it  is  quite  obvious,  that  v>"hen 
a  book  has  the  authority  of  the  canon  so  augustly 
sanctioned,  it  needs  to  a  Christian  no  other  recom- 
mendation. To  him  it  ceases  to  stand  on  its  trial. 
To  question  it  further  is  to  suspect  the  guarantee 
of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles.  We  may  add  to  its 
proofs  for  the  sake  of  confounding  infidelity,  but  to 
refuse  our  own  assent  till  they  are  produced,  is 
most  criminal  unbelief. 

With  respect  to  internal  evidence,  nothing  can 
be  more  satislactory  than  when  a  book  of  Scripture, 
by  the  nature  and  excellence  of  its  contents,  proves 
its  origin  to  be  divine.  This  is  eminently  to  be 
found  in  the  holy  books.     Tkit  let  it  be  observed. 


188  INSPIRATION    OF 

tliat  tills  is  not  essential  in  every  book,  and  that 
the  nature  of  some  books  altogether  precludes  it. 
Books  of  genealogies,  and  other  matters,  have  their 
use  in  the  inspii'ed  volume.  But  how  could  genea- 
logical tables  prove  the  inspiration  by  internal 
evidence?  These  tables  may  be  taken  verbally 
and  literally  from  public  documents ;  but  as  they 
are  inserted  in  the  inspired  volume,  they  have  the 
seal  of  inspiration.  Internal  evidence,  essentially 
requisite  in  a  revelation,  is  only  negative.  A 
divinely  inspired  book  can  contain  nothing  that  is 
inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections,  as  revealed 
in  the  Gos23el.  But  when  a  book  is  j^roved  by 
external  evidence  it  is  absurd  to  su2:)pose  that  it 
can  contain  internal  evidence  to  disprove  itself. 
When,  therefore,  a  book  is  proved  by  external 
evidence  to  be  inspired,  wisdom  directs  us  to  be 
very  cautious  in  pronouncing  its  contents  to  be  unfit 
for  the  matter  of  revelation.  Such  a  book  could 
not  have  external  evedince.  To  jndge  rashly  in 
this  way  is  to  rush  on  the  buckler  of  the  Almighty. 
It  is  the  very  sin  of  our  first  parents, — ^the  sin  that 
the  wicked  one  is  still  prompting  men  to  commit, — 
to  be  as  gods,  knowing  good  and  evil.  Does  vain 
man  consider  himself  a  perfect  judge  of  what  in 
all  cases  is  fit  for  God  to  write  ?  Is  he  able  to  give 
counsel  to  the  perfection  of  wisdom  ?  Must  revela- 
tion come  up  in  all  things  to  his  ideas  of  propriety  ? 
Must  the  Almiolitv  conform  Himself  to  his  stan- 


TilE   SCKIPTUIiES.  ISO 

dard  ?  How  disgusting  to  the  iiiiiid  of  an  humble 
Christian,  to  hear  presumptuous  men  dictating  on 
the  nature  of  divine  revelation,  as  if  they  were 
equal  to  God?  Tlieii*  pure  minds  take  oQence  at 
the  grossness  of  the  word  of  Him  in  wdiose  sight  the 
heavens  are  not  pure.  It  is  awful  presumption  to 
pretend  to  be  disgusted  with  the  Song  of  Solomon, 
when  it  is  found  in  the  canon  of  the  word  of  God. 
Whatever  my  own  judgment  might  be,  if  left  to 
determine,  a  priori^  of  the  nature  of  this  book, 
when  I  find  it  among  the  books  that  composed  the 
Jewish  canon,  sanctioned  by  Jesns,  and  declared 
by  Paul  to  be  inspired,  instead  of  indulging  my 
ingenuity  in  finding  out  an  evil  tendency  in  it,  I 
set  myself  to  discover  its  wisdom,  and  reap  the 
instruction  and  comfort  it  is  calculated  to  afford. 
Li  tiiis  view^,  I  am  persuaded,  every  humble  Chris- 
tian will  find  it  a  part  of  the  treasures  of  infinite 
wisdom.  The  sj^irit  that  rejects  it  is  a  spirit  of 
infidelity ;  and  though  this  writer  indulges  it  only 
in  denying  a  few  of  the  books  of  inspiration,  it  is 
the  very  same  spirit  that  works  in  the  complete 
infidel,  in  denying  the  whole  w^ord  of  God.  To 
deny  the  whole  volume  of  inspiration  would  not 
require  the  adoption  of  any  additional  principle ; 
it  would  only  be  necessary  to  act  more  fully  up 
to  it. 

K  there  is  any  thing  in  the  bool^  of  Chronicles, 
the  wisdom  of  which  humJlity,  patience  and  labor 


190  INSPIRATION    OF 

caunot  discover,  I  am  convinced  tliat  there  is  more 
good  sense,  as  well  as  piety,  in  the  observation  of 
Mr.  Scott,  than  in  the  fastidiousness  of  this  writer : 
''  If  we  conld  not  understand,  or  get  any  benefit 
from  certain  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  it  would  be 
more  reasonable,"  says  that  pious  man,  "  to  blame 
om-  o^^m  dulness,  than,  so  much  as  in  thought,  to 
censure  them  as  useless."  This  is  a  sentiment  that 
breathes  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity. 

Instead  of  finding  cause  of  quarrel  with  the  book 
of  Esther,  it  is  a  part  of  Scripture  that  I  have  long 
admired  as  super-eminently  abounding  Tv^th  proofs 
of  a  divine  origin.  I  see  in  it  the  characteristic 
features  of  the  divine  wisdom,  and  every  where 
discover  traces  of  the  finger  of  God.  It  is  to  me  a 
key  to  the  history  of  the  world,  and  an  insj^ired 
commentary  on  the  book  of  Providence.  From 
this  I  am  taught  to  see  the  hand  of  God  in  the 
minutest  concerns  of  my  life,  as  well  as  in  guiding 
the  wheels  of  empire.  "When  storms  and  darkness 
thicken  over  my  head,  from  the  book  of  Esther  I 
am  led  to  hope  that  they  may  break  around  me  in 
blessings,  or  at  least  be  dispersed  without  doing 
me  injury.  Yv^hen  this  book  is  commended  to  me 
by  the  canon  approved  by  Jesus,  shall  I  give  ujd 
to  hypercritical  fastidiousness  all  the  consolation 
which  it  aflbrds  me?  lie  that  robs  me  of  my 
money  steals  trash;  but  he  that  robs  me  of  any 
part  of  the  word  of  God,  takes  from  me  what  all 


THE   SCKIPTUIiES.  191 

the  earth  cannot  replace.  Learned  men,  in  the 
wantonness  of  their  genius,  may  think  it  a  very 
harmless  thing  to  question  our  title  to  some  parts 
of  the  domains  left  us  by  our  Lord.  In  the  sport 
of  criticism,  they  may  give  away  tracts  of  Scripture 
territory  with  much  less  concern  than  an  amateur 
would  the  picture  assigned  to  an  admired  artist,  or 
than  a  scholar  would  give  up  an  ode  of  Horace. 
But  a  Christian,  acting  fully  in  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity, will  cling  to  every  word  of  the  Holy  Book, 
and  guard  it  as  a  miser  guards  his  treasures.  The 
Scriptures  are  the  title-deeds  of  his  estate ;  and  he 
v\dll,  with  the  utmost  care,  preserve  every  line  and 
every  word  from  erasure. 

The  omission  complained  of  in  the  book  of 
Esther,  is  quite  analogous  to  the  providence  of  God 
which  it  illustrates.  It  is  in  the  characteristic  style 
of  Divine  Wisdom.  Divine  Providence  rules  all 
the  events  of  this  world ;  but  He  guides  the  uni- 
verse with  an  imseen  hand.  Though  His  friends 
see  His  hand  in  everything.  His  enemies  see  him  not 
at  all.  In  all  the  operations  of  His  wisdom  and 
power,  they  perceive  nothing  but  chance  and  con- 
fusion. Fortune  is  the  goddess  which  they  put  in 
the  place  of  the  God  of  Providence.  They  are  like 
children  beholding  the  movements  of  puppets. 
The  hand  behind  the  curtain  is  never  suspected. 
A  leaf  cannot  move  on  a  branch — no  living  crea- 
ture can  draw  breath,  without  the  operation  of  the 


192  INSPliiATiON   OF 

Divine  liand  ;  yet  are  the  most  wonderful  interposi- 
tions of  His  providence  unnoticed  bj  the  wisdom  of 
this  world.  God  is  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  men, 
even  while  He  is  everywhere  at  work  before  their 
face.  Is  there  any  need  for  a  voice  from  heaven 
to  proclaim  on  every  occasion,  "  It  is  God  that  per- 
forms this  ?  "  Is  it  not  self-evident  to  every  crea- 
tm-e  truly  wise  ?  Are  not  aU  inexcusable  who  do 
not  aclmowledge  His  over-ruling  power  ?  Must  a 
herald  proclaim  Him  the  author  of  His  works,  before 
men  are  blameable  in  ascribing  them  to  another 
cause  ?  Is  He  so  bad  a  painter  that  the  style  of  His 
works  is  not  characteristic  of  their  author  ?  Is  He 
so  little  known  in  the  world  that  witnesses  must  be 
brought  into  court  to  prove  His  hand  writing  ?  If 
there  is  a  human  creature,  possessed  of  aU  the 
faculties  of  man,  w^ho  is  unacquainted  with  the 
hand- writing  of  God,  he  is  a  guilty  creature.  Innu- 
merable examples  of  it  have,  from  hiis  infancy, 
been  before  his  eyes.  And  why  should  not  the 
book  of  Esther  be  in  the  style  of  the  hand-writing 
of  that  Providence,  whose  wonders  it  exhibits  ? 
Both  are  anonymous  letters;  but  they  are  letters 
which  heaven  and  earth  could  not  counterfeit. 
The  hand-writing  proves  its  author.  To  ascribe 
the  book  of  Esther  to  a  wicked  Jew,  is  as  void  of 
foundation,  as  to  ascribe  the  w^orks  of  Providence 
to  the  devil. 

Had  we  written  the  Boc)k  of  Esther,  no  doubt 


THE   SCRIPTURES.  193 

our  wisdom  would  have  expressed  our  whole  creed, 
guarded  at  all  points  by  logical  definition,  to  cut 
off  pretence  for  invasion.  The  feeblest  pin  would 
have  afforded  a  hold  for  all  the  weight  of  our 
orthodoxy.  But  it  is  not  so  with  the  wisdom  of 
God.  Tlie  truth,  in  all  its  bearings,  is  not  exhibited 
in  any  single  passage  in  the  Bible.  To  have  a  com- 
Ijlete  view  of  it,  we  must  bring  together  passages 
scattered  throughout  the  whole  Scriptures.  The 
book  of  Esther  is  designed  for  a  particular  pur- 
pose ;  it  is  sufficient  that  it  serves  that  purpose. 
As  a  part  of  the  sacred  volume,  it  is  admirably 
instructive ;  it  never  was  designed  to  stand  alone. 
The  preaching  of  Jesus  himself  could  not  stand  the 
test  to  which  this  writer  subjects  the  book  of 
Esther.  He  did  not,  in  every  address,  bring  for- 
w^ard  the  doctrine  of  salvation.  The  book  of  Esther 
teaches  the  truth  as  far  as  it  goCs  ;  it  is  no  degra- 
dation to  it  that  it  leaves  the  most  important  thing 
to  be  gathered  by  inference.  Even  by  itself,  its 
meaning  cannot  be  innocently  mistaken ;  but,  in 
conjunction  with  the  other  books  of  Scripture,  all 
appearance  of  cover  is  removed.  Is  it  not  sufficient 
if  the  whole  Scriptures  contain  the  wdiole  will  of 
God  ?  Shall  we  arrogantly  prescribe  to  Him  what 
is  requisite  in  every  part?  While  the  way  of 
salvation  is  dispersed  in  multitudes  of  places  through 
the  Bible,  many  passages  might  be  collected  in 
which  there  is  nothing  about  it. 


194  DTSPIEATION   OF 

I- implore  siicli  writers  to  reflect  on  tlie  awful 
nature  of  their  sentiments.  If  tliis  book  is  inspired, 
and,  if  Dr.  Smith's  explanation  of  2  Timothy  iii. 
16,  be  correct,  inspired  it  mnst  be,  how  highly 
andacions  is  it  to  ascribe  it  to  some  wicked  Jew ! 
If,  in  their  judgment,  it  contains  evidence  of  being 
the  work  of  a  wicked  author,  do  they  not  find  that 
wickedness  in  God,  should  the  book  be  finally 
acknowledged  by  God  ?  Is  there  hazard  here  ?  Is 
not  rashness  on  such  a  point  the  extravagance  of 
madness  ?  If  the  work  is  charged  as  a  wicked 
work,  and  God  is  found  to  be  its  author,  is  not 
God  charged  with  its  wickedness  ?  I  admit  that 
the  wi'iter  does  not  intentionally  make  such  a 
charge.  But  does  this  clear  him  ?  If  so,  the  Jews 
win  be  imiocent  in  rejecting  the  Gospel ;  for  they 
conceive  that  it  led  to  licentiousness.  K  so,  the 
modern  revilers  of  salvation,  by  the  grace  of  God 
through  Jesus  Christ,  will  all  stand  without  blame ; 
for  they  oppose  it  out  of  zeal  for  the  interests  of 
good  works.  Has  the  man  of  sin  opposed  the 
truth,  as  being  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  the  true 
Gospel  ?  Does  he  not  view  the  Gospel  of  the  grace 
of  God  as  the  heresy  of  wicked  men,  seduced  by 
the  devil?  Yet  he  is  the  son  of  perdition,  the 
smoke  of  whose  torment  ascendeth  forever  and 
ever.  And  is  it  a  light  thing  upon  the  strength  of 
rash  objections,  to  affront  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  and 
ascribe,  though  ignorantly,  any  part  of  the  word  of 


THE    SCRIPTUEES.  195 

God  to  wicked  men?  If  tliis  charge  is  imfounded, 
even  thougli  not  intended  iis  against  God,  it  argues 
disaffection  to  the  divine  wisdom.  AVhat  is  nnbo,- 
lief  but  disaffection  to  the  wisdom  of  God '?  Men 
reject  the  Gospel,  because,  indulging  their  own  wis- 
dom, the  wisdom  of  God  ap23ears  foolishness  to 
them.  Listead  of  submitting  to  the  plan  of  divine 
wisdom,  when  communicated  to  them,  they  take  on 
them  to  cj[uestion  its  merits  ;  and  finding  it  alto- 
gether opposed  to  their  own  views,  they  reject  it 
as  an  imposture,  or  explain  it  in  conformity  with 
the  wisdom  of  man.  Had  the  Gospel  appeared  the 
wisdom  of  God,  in  the  estimation  of  the  princes  of 
this  world,  they  would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord 
of  glory.  They  did  this  in  ignorance, — because 
the  wisdom  of  God  is  foolishness  to  the  world ; 
but  this  ignorance,  as  it  was  enmity  against  the 
wisdom  of  God,  which  nothing  but  atheistical  pride 
of  human  wisdom  could  have  kept  them  from  dis- 
cerning, was  culpable  in  the  highest  degree.  Tliis 
ignorance  was  damnation.  ]^ow,  if  the  book  of 
Esther  is  really  written  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  it 
v/ill  be  no  defence  for  this  writer,  that  it  is  not  in 
the  style  of  human  wisdom.  God  has  23resented  it 
to  him  as  his  own  work,  by  having  it  inserted  in 
the  canon  sanctioned  by  Christ,  and  attested  as  in- 
spired by  Paul.  If,  in  the  arrogance  of  his  ov»"n 
wisdom,  he  presumes  to  see  defects  in  it,  notwith- 
standmg  such  attestation,  it  is  at  his  peril  he  rejects 


196  J^s-SPIBATION    OF 

it.  lie  indulged  the  very  same  spirit  that  in- 
duces all  nnbelievers  to  reject  the  Gospel.  Do  I 
tlien  say  that  to  deny  the  insj^iration  of  this  book 
is  damnation  ?  No — I  say  it  is  not  damnation ; 
because  no  ignorance  or  opposition  to  the  divine 
wisdom  is  damnation,  but  the  ignorance  of  one 
point — the  ignorance  of  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the 
plan  of  salvation.  This  ignorance  is  declared  by 
God  to  be  damnation.  But  ignorance  of  every 
other  part  of  the  divine  wisdom  is  not  damnation ; 
because  it  is  declared  that  he  that  believeth  the 
Gospel  shall  be  saved.  It  could  not  be  a  truth  to 
which  there  is  no  exception,  that  the  belief  of  the 
Gospel  is  salvation,  if  any  ignorance  consistent  with 
the  knowledge  of  this  one  point,  was  damnation. 
But  while  I  rejoice  in  this  fact  so  comforting  to  us 
all,  for  none  of  us  are  without  our  errors  and  igno- 
rance, I  think  it  right  to  keep  it  constantly  before 
my  own  mind,  and  that  of  all  my  brethren,  that 
every  instance  of  disaffection  to  the  divine  wisdom 
is  highly  criminal.  It  is  this  that  has  introduced 
all  the  corruptions  of  the  Gospel ;  it  is  this  that  has 
changed  all  the  ordinances  of  God,  and  intro- 
duced into  nominal  Christianity  all  the  pomp  and 
ceremony  of  pagan  Kome.  I  am  convinced  that 
many  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  all  the  igno- 
rance of  the  divine  wisdom  that  keeps  them  there, 
may  have  so  much  knowledge  of  the  wisdom 
of  God  in  the  plan  of  salvation,  as  will  wash  them 


THE   SCRIPT UKES.  197 

ill  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  at  List  present  them 
bhinieless  before  his  throne.     But  while  I  think  so-, 
I  do  not  on  that   account   think   their  iirnor^nce 
innocent,  nor  cease  to  crj  to  them  in  the  words  of 
the  Lord,  "  Come  out  of  her,  my  people,  that  ye  be 
not  partakers  of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not 
of  her  23lagues."     Li  like  manner  do  I  judge  of  the 
denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the  book  of  Esther,  on 
the  considerations  of  its  supposed  defects.     It  ap- 
pears to  me  exceedingly  siuful,  without   the  alle- 
viating circumstances  of  prejudice,  education,  &c., 
that  weigh   on   the   Roman   Catholic.     "Were  the 
objection  a  thousand  times  more  plausible  than  it 
is,  prudence,  I  think,  should   dictate  very  great 
caution  in  condemning.     Had  the  objection  struck 
me  as  it  did  the  writer  of  the  article,  instead  of 
rashly  yielding  to  it,  my  reason  teaches  me,  that  as 
the  book  is  authenticated  by  God,  I  should  have 
sought  by  reading  and  prayer,  to  see  the  divine 
wisdom  of  that  which  in  my  wisdom  did  not  appear 
such.     Listead  of  boldly  concluding  from  first  sight, 
that  this  was  evidence  of  a  wicked  author,  I  would 
have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  there  was  wisdom 
in  it,  though  I  could  not  discern  that  wisdom.     Li 
this  way,  I  have  no  doubt,  I  would  have  come  to 
see  the  wisdom  of  that  which  might  at  first  strike 
me  as  folly.     As  I  am  man,  and  not  God,  I  never 
pretend  to  judge  for  God.     All  His  ways,  I  take  it 
for  granted,  are  wise,  and  my  wisdom  is  to  search 


198  mspiiiATioN  OF 

for  trie  traces  of  tliat  wisdom.  In  sitting  clown  to 
a  human  writing,  I  try  everything  with  the  utmost 
circumspection  and  jealousy.  In  re-perusing  my 
own  writings,  I  do  the  ^ame,  because  to  err  is 
human.  But  when  I  sit  down  to  the  Scriptures,  it 
is  not  with  the  eye  of  a  critic  to  find  faults,  nor  as 
a  judge  to  put  them  on  their  trial  at  the  bar  of  my 
own  wisdom.  As  I  have  the  fnllest  evidence  that 
they  are  the  word  of  God,  I  read  to  learn, — ^I  read 
to  explore  the  divine  wisdom, — I  read  to  discover 
what  may  lie  hid  from  human  wisdom.  As  the 
Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  I  expect  such  a 
fulness  and  perfection  in  them,  that  I  may  dig  up 
treasures  that  may  have  yet  escaped  the  eye  of 
human  wisdom.  Having  found  the  key  of  the 
divine  wisdom  in  the  Scriptures,  I  apply  it  every- 
where ;  and  the  marked  characteristics  of  that  wis- 
dom, are  to  me  the  best  commentary  on  the  book 
of  God,  both  of  Scripture  and  providence.  It  is  in 
this  way,  that  the  thing  that  has  stumbled  this 
writer,  has  long  appeared  to  me  as  a  certain  evi- 
dence of  the  divine  origin  of  the  book  of  Esther. 
Whether  his  scepticism,  or  my  faith,  is  more  suita- 
ble to  human  weakness,  I  might  leave  to  the  deter- 
mination of  every  humble  Christian.  At  aU  events, 
I  triumph  in  the  appeal  to  the  throne  of  the  eternal 
judge,  for  the  decision  of  this  controversy. 

I  request  the  writer's  attention  to  another  con- 
sequence of  the  sentiment  advanced  by  him  on  the 


THE   SCKIPTURES.  199 

subject  of  the  inspiration  of  the  objected  books. 
He  lays  a  foundation  for  infidelity,  with  resj)ect  to 
the  denial  of  the  inspired  books,  to  any  extent  that 
a  person  may  choose  to  build  on  it.  He  is  himself 
displeased  only  with  a  few  books ;  but  if  his  princi- 
ples are  admitted,  I  do  not  know  how  any  book 
can  be  retained.  The  authoi-ity  of  the  canon,  with 
all  its  sanctions,  he  does  not  admit  as  paramount ; 
and  the  non-conformity  of  its  matter  to  his  own 
views,  is  allowed  as  sufficient  to  discredit  the  title 
of  a  book  to  the  character  of  inspiration.  How 
then  can  any  book  of  Scripture  stand  such  an 
ordeal  ?  A  thousand  things  in  the  epistles  may 
more  plausibly  be  objected  to,  than  the  defect  com- 
plained of  in  the  book  of  Esther.  So  far  from  the 
absence  of  the  name  of  God,  proving  irresistibly 
that  none  but  a  wicked  Jew  could  have  written 
that  book,  it  appears  to  me,  on  the  contrary,  that 
had  a  wicked  Jew  really  been  the  author,  it  would 
have  possessed  the  perfection,  the  want  of  which 
the  writer  so  much  regrets.  How  could  either  the 
honor,  or  the  safety  of  the  Jewish  people,  or  any 
single  Jew,  be  hazarded  by  the  avowal,  that  the 
governor  of  the  universe  was  their  protector  and 
avenger  ?  But  at  all  events,  in  whatever  way 
human  wisdom  would  decide  on  this  question,  to 
deny  the  inspiration  of  a  book  so  highly  sanctioned 
on  the  ground  of  speculations  of  this  kind,  appears 
to  me  to  be  the  very  wantonness  of  sceptical  folly. 


200  mSPIKATION    OF 

Such  evidence  as  that  on  which  this  writer  rests, 
would  not  be  sijfficient  to  displace  from  his  works 
any  of  the  orations  usually  ascribed  to  Demos- 
thenes. To  reject  the  book  of  Esther  on  such  evi- 
dence, is  the  very  madness  of  criticism.  Admit 
such  principles,  and  who  shall  defend  the  mspira- 
tion  of  Paul  agahist  the  Arians  and  Socinians  ? 
Who  shall  be  able  to  defend,  in  the  writings  of 
that  Apostle,  the  inspiration  of  those  deep  things 
of  God,  that  appear  as  hard  sayings  to  the  wisdom 
of  this  world  ?  Every  man  may  innocently  reject 
whatever  is  displeasing  to  his  own  mind.  In  this 
way  our  Bible  will  not  contain  a  single  page  whose 
inspiration  will  be  universally  admitted.  All  will 
be  matter  of  human  opinion. 

I^or  will  the  writer  be  able  to  keep  the  exact 
station  which  he  has  now  chosen.  He  will  either 
be  obhged  to  come  back  to  us,  or  the  infidel  will 
force  him  nearer  to  himself.  Let  him  not  vainly 
imagine,  that  by  throwing  the  objected  books  over- 
board, he  will  be  able  to  keep  the  ship  from  sink- 
ing, and  save  the  rest.  When  he  offers  to  sm-ren- 
der  these  books  to  the  deist,  if  he  knows  his  busi- 
ness, he  will  not  take  them  from  him.  He  may 
reply,  these  books  that  you  give  up  to  me,  are 
authenticated  by  him  you  call  your  master,  and  by 
him  you  denominate  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. You  must  acknowledge  them  as  yours,  or 
you  must  surrender  at  discretion,  and  give  me  up 


THE    SCRIPTUEES.  201 

all  tlie  writings  of  Paul,  and  all  the  authority  of 
Jesus.  K  the  one  falls,  the  other  will  fall  of  course. 
Wlio  can  depend  on  Jesus,  if  he  has  acknowledged 
the  authority,  of  a  book,  which  you  and  I  have 
found  to  be  the  writing  of  a  wicked  Jew  ?  What 
credit  can  be  given  to  Paul,  if  he  has  so  egregionsly 
erred  about  these  books  ? 

What  an  unholy  cause  are  these  writers  engaged 
in !  They  are  laboring  as  fervently  in  lowering 
the  character  of  the  word  of  God,  as  the  Neolo- 
gians  are  laboring  to  sap  the  foundations  of  Chris- 
tianity, under  a  mask  of  submission  to  its  authority. 
Dr.  Smith  struggles  hard  to  degrade  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures ;  and  both  he  and  the  Ecclectic 
Eeview  have  labored  to  unsettle  the  canon.  Both 
have  adopted  principles  which  tend  to  confusion ; 
and  to  the  subversion  of  the  Scriptures  as  the 
Book  of  God.  Dr.  Smith  has  denied  the  verbal 
inspiration  of  the  Bible,  and  every  kind  of  inspira- 
tion to  all  the  passages  that  any  one  may  choose 
to  consider  as  not  being  of  a  religious  or  moral 
nature ;  and  the  Ecclectic  Peview  has  rejected 
whole  books  of  Scripture,  on  principles  that  Vvdll 
condemn  every  book  in  the  canon.  Better,  much 
better  for  a  Christian,  that  he  had  not  so  much 
learning  as  to  write  his  own  name,  than  to  display 
the  abilities  of  ISTewton,  in  degrading  the  word 
of  God.  Grotius  is  said  to  have  exclaimed  on 
his  death-bed :   lieu  mtam  lyredidi  officiose  nihil 


202  mSPIKATlON    OF    THE    SCEIPTUKES. 

agendo  :  Alas  !  I  have  spent  mg  life  in  lahmnoxisly 
doing  nothing.  But  manj  learned  Christians  not 
only  waste  their  time  in  laborious  trifles,  but  in 
ignorantly  fighting  against  God.  How  much  con- 
fusion has  been  brought  on  divine  tnith,  by  the 
waywardness  even  of  the  discij)les  of  the  Lord ! 
IIow  much  obscurity  has  been  introduced  into  the 
j)lainest  subjects,  by  perverted  ingenuity!  How 
much  error  arises  from  not  reading  the  Scriptures 
with  the  disposition  of  little  children  !  When  will 
Christians  learn  to  renounce  their  own  wisdom  ! 
When  will  they  cease  to  conform  the  Scriptures  to 
their  own  views !  When  will  learned  Christians 
seek  the  approbation  of  God  in  all  their  labors, 
regardless  of  the  smiles  and  of  the  frowns  of  a 
world  that  lieth  in  the  wicked  one !  When  will 
truth  be  esteemed  the  most  precious  of  all  posses- 
sions !  "  Thy  testunonies  have  I  taken  as  an  heri- 
tage forever ; "  says  the  Psalmist,  "  for  they  ar* 
the  rejoicing  of  my  heart." 


APPENDIX  TO  KEMARKS 


Dk.  Pye  Smith,  iii  a  second  edition  of  his  work 
on  tlie  Messiah,  has  endeavored,  fi-om  the  import 
of  the  word  Xo^o^,  to  silence  some  of  the  testimonies 
for  verbal  inspiration.  "Much  stress,"  sajs  he, 
"  has  been  laid  on  the  nse  of  the  expressions  men- 
tioned before,  (p.  ±o.)  v/here  speaMnc/^  saying^  and 
the  like,  are  ascribed  to  the  Holy  S]3irit  hy  the 
rjioidh  of  his  servants ;  and  such  j)assages  as  these, 
'  I  will  2>iit  my  wards  in  his  month,'  Dent,  xviii  18. 
'I  liave  given  unto  them  the  words  which  thou 
gavest  me,'  John  xvii  8.  'We  speak  not  in  the 
words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  in  those 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth,"  1  Cor.  ii.  13. 
Those  who  use  this  argument  are  probably  not 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptural  meaning  of  i:n  and 
Xo/oj,  especially  the  plural  forms,  and  the  idioms 
counected  with  them ;  that  they  denote  not  vocables^ 
or  singl-e  word^  but  coii'ihh%ed  8j?eech^  the  matter 
conveved  in  the  tenor  and  total  of  an  oral  or  wiitten 


204  iinspieation  of 

address,  serr/wnes^  la  ^aroleP  vol  1.  p.  97.  The 
peculiarity  here  adverted  to,  as  far  as  it  was  well 
founded,  can  be  news  to  no  classical  scholar.  And 
it  is  equally  obvious  to  the  smallest  degree  of  critical 
discernment,  that  this  fact  cannot  bear  the  inference 
which  Dr.  Smith  di'aws  from  it.  Even  admitting 
that  *^3T  and  Xo^'o^  never  did  refer  to  single  terms, 
the  conclusion  is  not  warranted.  K  sentences^ 
ex^'essions^  or  comlined  sj>eech^  are  ascribed  to 
God,  the  single  words  must  be  his  also,  for  it  is  of 
these  the  combination  is  composed.  The  whole 
cannot  be  God's,  if  the  parts  separately  are  not  His. 
Dr.  Smith's  criticism  is  as  absurd  as  if  one  should 
say,  that  when  an  officer  is  said  to  be  the  colonel 
of  such  a  regiment,  it  does  not  import  that  he  is 
the  colonel  of  the  soldiers  in  that  regiment,  because 
the  word  regiment  denotes  a  body  of  men  united. 
An  oration  of  Demosthenes  is  called  Xoyo^.  But  if 
an  oration  as  a  whole  is  his,  the  words  considered 
separately  ai'e  his  also.  We  do  not  argue  that  it 
signifies  single  terms  as  distinguished  from  terms 
combined  in  speech;  but  that  signifying  terms 
combined  in  speech,  it  includes  single  terms.  If 
God  is  the  author  of  the  terms  as  a  combination. 
He  is  the  author  of  them  considered  singly.  What 
we  contend  for  is,  that  Xo^o^,  whether  referring  to 
one  word,  or  to  a  number  in  combination,  refers  to 
expression^  and  that  in  this  respect  it  is  as  definite 
as  ^r)<i,«  itself     \oyos  when  used  distinctively,  implies 


THE  SCRirTLTKES.  205 

expressiou  with  respect  to  a  number  of  words  com- 
bined ;  fr)fxa,  expression  with  respect  to  one  vford. 
But  though  "koyos  has  this  distinctive  meaning,  it  is 
not  fact  that  either  it  or  the  Hebrew  word  "^^n,  is 
never  used  with  respect  to  singe  words.  Many- 
examples  might  be  produced  to  prove  the  contrary. 
Joshua  viii.  34,  35,  "  And  afterwards  he  read  all 
the  words  of  the  law,  the  blessings  and  cursings, 
accordmg  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law.  There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses 
commanded,  which  Joshua  read  not  before  all  the 
congregation  of  Israel." 

Here  the  term  word  must  signify  a  single  word, 
yet  the  Hebrew  is  ^T\^  for  which  the  Septuagint 
uses  ^^aa. 

Isaiah  xxxvi.  21,  "But  they  held  their  peace, 
and  answered  him  not  a  word."  Here  the  term 
icord  applies  to  a  single  word,  yet  the  Hebrev/  was 
"i^n,  and  the  Greek  'h^yo^. 

Psalm  cxxxix.  4,  "For  there  is  not  a  word  in 
my  tongue,  but,  lo,  O  Lord,  thou  knowest  it  alto- 
gether." Here  the  Hebrew  uses  nSa,  and  the 
Greek  "Koyog, 

Isaiah  xxix.  21,  "  That  make  a  man  an  offender 
for  a  wordP  Here  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  a 
single  word  is  meant,  yet  we  have  in  the  Hebrew 
and  in  the  Greek  the  terms  in  question. 

Eev.  xxii.  22,  "If  any  man  shall  take  away  from 
the  tvords  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy."     Here  the 


206  INSPIRATION   OF 

original  lias  Xoy/of ,  yet  it  must  refer  to  singler  terms. 
But  in  tills  criticism,  Dr.  Smitli  artfully  substi- 
tutes the  words,  "The  matter  conveyed,"  &c.  as 
syiioiiimous  with  the  words  '•^  coiiiblned  sjyeechP 
Now  the  matter  conveyed  in  a  speech  is  not  the 
speech  that  conveys  that  matter.  The  speech  con- 
tains both  the  words  and  the  matter,  but  not  the 
matter  without  the  words,  nor  distinguished  from 
the  words.  Though,  therefore,  "Koyos  eignifies  co^ii- 
hlnecl  sjyeech^  a  sentence^  an  oration^  a  treatise^  etc. 
yet  it  never  signifies  the  matter  of  that  sentence, 
oration,  treatise,  &c.  without  the  words,  or  distinct 
from  the  words.  It  includes  the  matter,  because 
the  words  express  the  matter.  It  is  admitted  that 
both  the  Hebrew  word  and  the  Greek  have  an 
acce]3tation,  without  any  reference  to  expression; 
but  in  that  acceptation,  it  is  evident,  they  cannot 
be  used  in  the  passages  in  question.  In  such  instan- 
ces they  do  not  denote  the  meaning  or  matter  of  a 
speech,  more  than  the  words  of  a  speech.  They 
do  not,  indeed,  refer  to  speech  in  any  point  of 
view.  Let  us  now  take  a  look  at  the  examples 
which  he  alleges  as  the  support  of  this  criticism. 
"Of  this  they  might  discover  evidence,  if  they 
would  examine,  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts, 
the  following  passages,  which  are  but  a  specimen 
of  a  very  numerous  body.  ^  Exod.  xviii.  16, 19,  22, 
26 ;  xix.  6—9  ;  2  Sam.  xi.  18  ;  Ps.  cv.  27 ;  Jer.  i.  1 ; 
Amos  i.  1 ;  1  Chron.  xxix.  29 ;  Mark  i.  45 ;  John 


THE   SCKIPTUEES.  207 

iv.  37,  39 ;  Acts  i.  1 ;  xv.  32 ;  xx.  7 ;  1  Cor.  i.  17, 
18 ;  ii.  1,  4 ;  xv.  2,'  &c.  &c."  Let  us  examine 
them  as  they  stand,  and  we  shall  see  that  they  give 
no  testimony  that  will  yield  any  support  to  Dr. 
Smith's  criticism.  Exod.  xviii.  16,  19,  22,  26, 
"  When  they  have  a  matter  they  come  unto  me," — 
"  bring  the  causes  unto  God," — "  every  great  matter 
they  shall  bring  unto  thee." — "the  hard  causes 
they  brought  unto  Moses."  Here  the  Hebrew 
wor<l  ^y^  is  used  to  denote  matter^  tiling^  cause. 
But  this  does  not  conform  to  either  part  of  the 
definition  of  the  word  given  by  Dr.  Smith.  This 
is  not  comhined  s])eech^  nor  is  it  "  the  matter  con- 
veyed in  the  tenor  and  total  of  an  oral  or  written 
address."  It  is  matter.^  tiling^  ccmse,,  without  respect 
to  speech.  It  is  only  a  play  upon  the  sound  of  the 
word  maMer.  It  makes  matter  as  an  abstract  word, 
coincide  with  matter .^  as  importing  meaning,  which 
are  as  different  in  their  significations  as  any  two 
words  in  the  lanffuao^e.  And  it  is  most  strano-e 
that  Dr.  Smith  has  not  observed,  that  in  this  accep- 
tation of  the  Hebrew  term,  the  Septuagint  has  used 
^r]|j.a,  as  weU  as  Xa^o^,  as  a  translation.  In  verse  16, 
the  Greek  is  avl iXoym^-  a  controversy ;  in  verse  19, 
the  Greek  is  Xo^oj;  and  in  verse  22,  26,  fy/,y^a  is 
used.  Indeed  f/;,acc  is  the  term  used  for  thing^  in 
Luke  ii.  15.  In  this  acceptation,  then,  fv;,aa  and  Xopj 
are  equally  used.  In  the  sense  of  coriilnned  sjyeech., 
both  ^*j/Aa  and  sro? ,  are  used  as  weU  as  Xo^o?,  though 


208     •  ES^SPIKATION    OF 

when  used  distinctivelj,  each  has  its  peculiar 
province,  "kayog  has  a  greater  varietj^  of  significa- 
tions than  any  of  its  synonyms.  There  is  no  doubt 
but  there  is  a  connection  between  the  remotest  of 
these  and  the  original  idea ;  and  it  is  the  business 
of  the  philosophical  linguist  to  trace  this  connection. 
But  the  fact  is  all  we  are  concerned  with,  that  it  has 
the  meaning  of  matter^  cause^  thing^  office^  as  Vv-ell 
as  the  corresponding  Hebrew  term,  without  any 
reference  to  speech  at  all.  In  this,  however,  ^r^^a 
has  suffered  the  same  extension.  Indeed,  the 
origin  of  this  use  is  not  difficult  to  discover.  "What 
can  be  more  obvious,  than  a  metonymy  of  the 
expression  for  the  thing  expressed,  and  in  progress, 
the  passing  of  the  metonymical  use  mto  proper 
signification,  without  any  reference  to  expression? 
Why,  I  ask,  has  Dr.  Smith  grounded  an  argument 
upon  this  use  of  Xo^o^,  which  might  as  well  be 
grounded  on  f/^wa,  the  very  term  which  distinctly 
denotes  words  as  smgle  terms  ?  Might  not  another 
as  reasonably  say,  "^?5«4a  signifies  matter^  thing ^  &c. 
therefore  it  cannot  be  understood  of  single  words." 
This  definition,  then,  is  inconsistent  with  itself, 
and  the  examples  are  inconsistent  with  both  parts 
of  it. 

In  Exodus  xix.  6,  9,  the  Hebrew  word  is  used 
in  its  usual  meaning  as  denoting  words,  and  is  ren- 
dered by  the  Septuagint  both  l)y  Xoyog  and  ^ri^^a. 
Moses  laid  before  the  people  the  very  works  of 


THE  SCKirTUliES.  209 

the  Lord,  and  to  denote  these  words  the  LXX  use 
the  two  Greek  words  indifferently. 

2  Sam.  xi.  18.  "Then  Joab  sent  and  told  David, 
all  tlie  tilings  concerning  the  war."  Here  the 
term  in  the  original  corresponding  to  things^  may 
cither  be  taken  as  signifying  things^  without  any 
reference  to  words,  or  the  words  of  tJw  loar^  may 
bo  words  giving  an  account  of  the  vrar — words  in 
the  strict  sense. 

Psalm  cv.  27.  They  showed  the  coords  of  his 
signs,  that  is,  they  used  the  words  which  God  put 
into  their  mouth,  by  which  the  signs  were  per- 
formed. But  in  whatever  way  this  phraseology  is 
explained,  it  can  have  no  bearing  on  the  dispute. 

Jer.  i.  1.  "  Tlie  w^ords  of  Jeremiah,"  &c.  And 
what  else  are  they  than  w^ords  ?  These  words  con- 
tained the  things  that  he  spoke.  The  LXX  trans- 
late it,  "  The  word  of  God  that  came  upon  Jere- 
miah," &c.,  using  the  word  f/jf^a,  and  in  the  next 
verse  using  'Koyog  for  the  same  thing. 

Amos  i.  1.  "The  words  of  Amos."  And  the 
words  of  Amos  they  are,  notwithstanding  it  is  said 
that  he  saio  them.  This  phraseology  is  to  be 
understood  on  the  same  principle  as  that  which 
speaks  of  seeing  a  voice.  There  was  a  vision ; 
something  was  seen  which  uttered  things  that  were 
heard.  Would  it  be  more  intelligible  to  substitute 
for  the  "  words  of  Amos,"  the  comMned  speeches  of 
Amos,  or  "  the  matter  conveyed  in  the  tenor  and 


210  INSPIEATION    OF 

total  of  the  oral  or  written  address,  sermones,  la 
parole  of  Amos  ?  -'  I  think  it  would  need  as  good 
glasses  to  see  aU  this,  as  to  see  the  words  of  the 
prophet. 

Mark  i.  45.  "Elaze  abroad  the  matter."  Thongli 
the  passage  might  be  translated  the  report^  that  is, 
the  rej)ort  of  the  miracle,  jet  I  have  no  objection 
to  the  common  version,  which  is  quite  in  accord- 
ance with  what  I  have  already  advanced.  But 
it  is  matter^  or  tiling^  without  reference  to  words. 
It  is  not  meanino;  contra-distino-iiished  from  words. 
It  is  not  matter  conveyed  in  tenor  and  total  of  a 
wi'itten  or  oral  address. 

John  iv.  37,  39.  "  And  herein  is  that  saying 
true," — "  the  saying  of  the  woman."  Yer}^  good 
proof,  if  Dr.  Smith  had  the  misfortune  to  contend 
with  any  so  uninformed  as  to  assert  that  \o/o- 
always  signifies  a  single  term,  and  not  a  number 
of  terms  in  combination.  lie  does  not,  however, 
find  in  us  critics  of  this  stamp.  'Koyoz  we  contend 
may  signify  one  word,  or  a  whole  treatise.  Is  it 
of  such  a  thing  as  this  that  Dr.  Smith  presumes  to 
say,  that  those  who  alleged  an  argument  from  the 
phraseology  which  he  quotes,  are  probably  unac- 
quainted ?  Who  is  unacquainted  with  the  fact 
that  'Kay^c,  has  a  multiplicity  of  meanings  ?  l^one 
who  are  able  io  look  for  a  word  in  a  lexicon.  But 
because  the  term  Xoyo^  signifies  a  sentence,  or  say- 
ing, or  report,  &c.,  &c.,  cannot  it  signify  words  ? 


THE   SCKIPTUKES.  211 

Then  the  term  loord  itself  in  English,  could  not 
signify  word  for  it  is  used  for  saying^  or  report,  as 
well  as  XoyotT.  I^ever  was  criticism  more  childish, 
with  all  its  parade  of  Hebrew  and  Greek. 

Acts  i.  1.  "  The  former  treatise  account ^^^  c&c. 
1^0  man  worth  replying  to,  ever  donbted  such 
acceptations  of  the  term  "koyog.  But  does  not  the 
term  in  this  acceptation  apply  to  every  word  in 
the  treatise  ?  If  it  was  Luke's  treatise,  the  words 
were  the  words  of  Luke ;  a  treatise  comprehends 
both  words  and  matter.  Strange  indeed,  if  this 
should  be  opposed  to  the  idea  of  verbal  inspiration ! 

Acts  XV.  32.  "  Exhorted  the  ])rethren  with  many 
word^^  or  much  discourse."  Did  they  exhort  with- 
out words  ?  The  fact  that  'k'^yog  denotes  combined 
speech,  does  not  imply  that  words  are  not  included 
in  it.     If  not,  this  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject. 

Acts  XX.  7.  "  Continued  his  discourse."  Why 
waste  time  with  such  allegations  as  this  ?  I  sup- 
pose his  discourse  consisted  in  words,  and  though 
the  term  X070J  applies  to  the  whole,  all  the  parts  are 
necessarily  included  in  the  whole. 

1  Cor.  i.  IT.  "  ISTot  with  wisdom  of  words,"  or  as 
in  the  margin,  "  of  speech."  Is  it  not  the  expression 
here  that  is  directly  referred  to  ?  1  Cor  i.  18.  "  The 
preaching  of  the  cross."  This  might  be  alleged  to 
show  that  the  term  Xoyoj  had  other  meanings,  as 
well  as  that  in 'which  it  denotes  words,  a  thing  that 
no  man  ever  thouglit  of  calling  in  question.     But 


212  INSPIRATION    OF 

does  this  say  that  the  term,  when  it  signihes  words, 
either  singly  or  combined,  cannot  refer  to  ex- 
pression ? 

Li  1  Cor.  ii.  1 — 4.  'koyog  does  not  indeed  denote  a 
single  word,  but  speech.  But  this  is  nothing  to  the 
porj^ose  of  Dr.  Smith.  Speech  is  made  up  of 
single  words,  and  the  words  of  a  speech  are  the 
words  of  the  author  of  the  speech.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  say,  that  a  speech  was  inspired,  but  that 
the  words  were  not  inspired.  Is  it  not  of  expres- 
sion, as  distinguished  from  the  thing  expressed, 
that  the  apostle  is  here  speaMng  ? 

In  1  Cor.  XY.  2,  the  word  is  variously  explained, 
but  in  no  sense  can  it  favor  Dr.  Smith.  Our  trans- 
lation is  substantially  good,  though  it  overlooks 
something  expressed  m  the  original,  which,  indeed, 
can  hardly  be  exactly  given  in  an  English  version. 
Tjvj  XoyoL  in  this  ]3lace  would,  I  think,  be  exactly 
rendered  by  qua  ratione^  referring  both  to  the  doc- 
trine preached,  and  the  orderly  connection  and 
dependence  of  the  parts  of  that  doctrine.  That 
both  the  ideas  are  included,  is  evident  from  the 
illustration  which  the  Apostle  himself  gives  of  the 
expression,  in  the  following  verses.  He  states  the 
diiferent  parts  of  his  doctrine,  and  the  order  in 
which  they  are  taught.  "  If  ye  remember  how  I 
preached  the  Gospel  to  you,"  might  not  be  far 
from  expressing  the  ideas  of  the  .original.  But 
how  can  this  passage,  m  any  sense  of  which  it  is 


TIIE  SCRIPTURES.  213 

capable,  tend  to  prove  that  Xo^oc,  when  applied  to 
the  Scriptures,  cannot  mean  the  expression  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  meaning  ?  Is  there  any  word 
perfectly  univocal?  Did  any  one  ever  suppose 
that  'Koyog  had  not  a  vast  variety  of  meanings? 
Does  Dr.  Smith  mean  to  assert,  that  the  meaning 
which  it  has  here  it  must  have  in  these  passages 
which  are  the  subjects  of  dispute  ?  He  refers  us  to 
a  number  of  examples  in  which  he  supposes  we 
will  find  some  w^onderful  discovery,  of  which,  till 
the  time  of  his  writing,  we  were  not  at  all  aware. 
Tliat  discovery,  however,  is  known  to  any  school- 
boy, as  soon  as  he  is  able  to  trace  the  words  of  his 
lexicon.  And  worst  of  all,  it  has  nothing  to  do 
vv'ith  the  subject.  But  I  invite  the  reader  espe- 
cially to  attend  to  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Smith 
endeavors  to  neutralize  the  testimony  of  1  Cor. 
ii.  13.  This  passage  is  so  clear,  that  he  is  obliged 
to  confess  that  it  refers  to  expression,  but  by 
resolving  expression  into  exjyressions^  style^  man- 
ner^ he  contrives  to  turn  the  reader's  attention  to 
the  latter  as  the  only  thing  meant  in  the  Apostle's 
assertion.  "  The  passage,  1  Cor.  ii.  13,"  says  he, 
"  evidently  refers  to  the  expression,  st^de  and  man- 
ner in  which  the  Apostle  taught  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel ;  and  it  declares  that  he  did  not  use  splendid 
eloquence  and  oratorical  arts,  nor  resort  to  any 
other  kind  of  allurement  to  captivate  hearers. 
(sv  X07W  KoXaxsfaj,  1  Tliess.  ii.  5, — TrXacTTOJ?  'koyoi<;^  2  Pet. 


214  INSPIRATION    OF 

ii.  3 ;)  but  tliat  he  delivered  his  lieavenlv  message 
in  simplicity  of  diction,  as  taught  and  inspired  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  [ihsu'ixalixoig  Ihsvixalixa  (fvyxPivovlss) 
adapting  spiritual  (expressions)  to  spiritual  sub- 
jects." E'ow  what  can  be  fairer  in  appearance 
than  this,  if  it  is  read  without  a  critical  eye  ?  What 
can  we  demand  more  than  is  here  admitted  ?  And 
is  not  style  the  principle  thing  to  which  the  Apostle 
refers  ?  But  there  is  management  here  that  per- 
verts the  testimony  of  God.  The  art  by  which  the 
writer  quashes  the  evidence  here  is,  by  substitu- 
ting something  implied  in  what  is  said,  for  the 
thing  that  is  actually  said.  It  is  of  expression 
solely  that  the  Apostle  speaks.  Style,  manner,  &c., 
are  undoubtedly  implied  in  this,  but  they  are  not 
the  thing  of  which  the  assertion  is  made.  Splendid 
eloquence  and  oratorical  arts  are  unquestionably 
included  in  the  denial,  but  they  are  not  the  thing 
of  which  the  denial  is  made.  They  are  included 
because  exjyression  includes  them ;  but  it  is  of 
expression  that  the  assertion  is  made.  The  Apos- 
tle's words  do  not"  directly  declare  that  he  did  not 
use  splendid  eloquence  and  oratorical  arts.  But 
this  is  one  of  the  things  implied  in  the  declaration. 
The  thing  declared  is,  that  the  Apostle  expressed 
divine  truth,  not  in  coords  taught  hy  human  wis- 
dcnn^  hut  in  coords  taught  hy  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Tlie  assertion  then  is  made  of  the  expression  or 
words  directly,  and   respects   style   only  as  it  is 


THE   SCKIPTUTES.  215 

iiicmcled  in  expression.     Tlie  thing  tliat  lie  denies 
is  not  the  using  of  flattery  and  simulation,  accord- 
ing to  1  Thess.  ii.  5,  2  Pet.  ii.  8,  but  that  he  spoke 
the  truths  of  the  Gospel  in  words  taught  ly  the 
wisdom  of  man.    That  he  did  not  use  flattery  and 
simulation  is  no  doubt  implied  in  this.     What  he 
asserts,  is   not  "that   he   delivered   his   heavenly 
message  in  simplicity  of  diction,"  though  this  is 
implied  in  what  he  does  assert ;  but  that  he  deliv- 
ered his  heavenly  message  in  heavenly  words.    The 
author  then  has  uncorked  the  heavenly  liquor,  and 
presents  it  to  us  in  a  state  quite  evaporated  and 
vapid.     He  has  besides  put  an  infusion  into  it  cal- 
culated to  deceive  the  eye  and  the  taste.     Here  is 
a  passage  then,  Dr.  Smith,  that  your  instrimients 
of  torture  cannot  silence,  nor  force  to  prevaricate. 
It  speaks  of  words^  and  whether  these  be  considered 
as  single  terms,  or  expression  as  combined  speech, 
it  is  exjrression  directly  distinguished  from  meaning. 
Tlie  Holy  Ghost  most  plainly  declares,  that  the 
truths  of  the  Gospel  were  taught  by  the  Apostles 
in  his  own  words.     He  speaks  both  of  the  matter 
and  of  the  expression  in  this  passage,  and  directly 
ascribes   to  the  Holy  Spirit   the  latter  as  distin- 
guished from  the  former.     ;^o  words  could  more 
expressly  assert  verbal  inspiration.     It  is  as  clear 
that  the  words  are  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as 
that  the  things  are  ascribed  to  him.     Dr.  Smith,  it 
is  no  easy  thing  to  fight  against  the  word  of  God. 


216  INSPIRATION   OF 

When  joii  may  think  that  you  have  stoned  it  to 
death,  it  will  with  Panl  qnicklj  stand  npon  its  feet 
and  testify  against  you  as  loudly  as  ever.  You 
have  done  your  utmost  to  murder  this  passage,  but 
it  rises  up  in  judgment  against  you,  and  proclaim.s 
that  the  Apostles  sjpoke  the  things  of  the  'Spirit  in 
the  words  of  the  Sjjirit.     "  Wnicn  things  also  we 

SPEAK,  NOT  IN  THE  WORDS  WHICH  MAn's  W^ISDOM 
TEACIIETIT,  BUT  WHICH   THE    HoLY  GlIOST   TEACHETH." 

Can  you  look  to  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  and 
deny  that  this  asserts  verbal  inspiration  ?  If  you 
can,  I  do  not  envy  you  your  conscience  or  your 
perspicacity. 

With  respect  to  the  words  IIvsu>a7ixo;j  IIv^ujaaTixa 
(fvyxpivovlsg  I  am  well  enough  pleased  with  the  com- 
mon version,  in  this  instance  as  in  most  others. 
But  whatever  is  right,  right  Dr.  Smith's  version 
cannot  be,  "  adapting  spiritual  (expressions)  to 
spiritual  subjects."  1.  When  an  adjective  is  thus 
exhibited  without  its  substantive,  the  substantive 
must  be  of  the  most  general  nature,  and  so  obvious 
as  to  occasion  no  question  as  to  what  it  is.  Things^ 
and  neither  exjyi^essions  nor  subjects,  is  the  proper 
substantive.  2.  It  is  necessary  that  the  same  sub- 
stantive should  be  supplied  to  both  words.  Exjyres- 
sions  cannot  be  supplied  to  the  one,  and  subjects 
to  the  other.  Let  Dr.  Smith  produce  me  an  un- 
doubted instance  of  similar  syntax,  and  I  ^vill  with- 
draw this  objection.     3.  Were  such  syntax  allovra- 


THE   SCIilPTURES.  217 

ble,  1  would  translate  the  passage  thus  : — Explam- 
ing  or  interjyreting  tJie  tilings  of  the  Spirit^  in  the 
^cords  of  the  Spirit^  a  meaning  both  true  and  suited 
to  the  connection.  But  as  I  am  convinced  that 
such  syntax  is  not  warrantable,  I  will  never  attempt 
to  force  the  word  of  God  to  su]3port  my  views.  I 
vv'ill  not  put  one  fingure  on  the  ark,  though  it 
should  appear  to  be  falling  over  a  precipice.  If 
God's  word  cannot  support  its  own  truths,  let  error 
prevail  to  the  day  of  judgment.  I  stand  quite  at 
ease  in  defending  my  sentiments  on  all  subjects  of 
divine  truth.  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  establish 
them,  and  to  convince  others,  by  an  exhibition  of 
evidence  as  clear  as  I  am  able.  But  I  will  not 
forge  X^roof^  were  I  assured  of  proselyting  the 
world.  It  is  not  to  please  myself,  that  I  adopt  my 
views,  and  I  cannot  expect  to  please  God  by  defend- 
ing His  truth  with  falsehood.  4.  With  respect  to 
the  word  Cu^x^fvoTs-,  we  might  as  well  open  an 
English  book  at  random,  and  take  any  word  that 
should  first  occur,  as  a  translation,  as  take  the 
word  adapting.  Tliis  is  to  make  Scripture  not  to 
translate.  Will  Dr.  Smith  be  so  good  as  to  show 
us  where  this  word  occurs  in  this  acceptation? 
5.  Where  there  no  other  objection,  the  phrase 
spiritual  expressions  aj^pear  to  be  unwarrantable. 
What  is  a  spirituol  expjression^  as  distinguished 
from  the  things  expressed  f  Arc  there  any  expres- 
sions either  as  to  words  or  phrases  of  a  spiritual 


218  mSFIKATION    OF 

nature  abstracted  from  their  meaning,  or  contra- 
distinguished from  it  ?  Is  there  any  spii-itual  vo- 
cabulary in  any  language  ?  Did  not  the  Apostles 
take  the  common  words  of  the  languages  in  which 
they  spoke,  and  apply  them  to  ex23res8  divine 
truth  ?  If  some  fanatic  had  spoken  about  spiritual 
expressions^  I  would  have  known  that  he  referred 
to  the  cant  phrases  of  his  party,  but  when  I  meet 
it  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Pye  Smith,  I  cannot  under- 
stand it. 

Upon  the  whole  then,  this  criticism  of  Dr.  Smith, 
is  liable  to  the  following  objections.  1.  It  con- 
founds two  meanings  of  the  word  \oyoc,  that  are 
entirely  distinct — ^namely,  combined  sijeecli^  and 
matter.^  thing^  cause^  offair.  Tlie  examples  in 
which  it  has  the  former  meaning,  refer  to  expres- 
sion, as  much  as  when  it  denotes  single  words  ;  and 
in  the  latter  signification,  it  has  no  reference  to 
speech  at  all,  either  in  expression  or  meaning. 
2.  It  supposes  that  "hoyog  when  it  refers  to  speech, 
always  signifies  combined  speech,  and  never  words, 
which  is  not  fact.  It  may  signify  a  treatise,  but  it 
may  also  signify  a  single  word.  3.  It  plays  on 
the  sound  of  the  word  matter^  and  because  it  signi- 
fies the  abstract  idea  maUer^  it  is  made  to  signify 
matter^  as  the  meaning  of  words,  two  ideas  as  dif- 
ferent as  any  two  that  can  be  conceived.  The 
definition  of  the  words  131  and  "Koyog  uses  the  word 
nfiatter^  as  signifying  the  meaning  of  an  expression, 


THE    SCEIPTURES.  219 


the  examples  in  wliich  the  words  signify  matte7\ 
all  refer  to  matter  in  the  abstract  sense.  The 
examples  of  course  fail  in  proving  that  for  which 
they  are  alleged.  4.  Had  it  even  been  successful 
as  to  the  words  ^^T  and  "koyog  this  would  not  have 
affected  the  evidence  arising  from  the  plu-aseology, 
in  which  "  speaMncj^  saying^  and  the  like,  are 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  tli6  mouth  of  his 
servants."  Yet  the  criticism  professes  to  apply  to 
this.  5.  The  criticism  supposes  that  the  significa- 
tion of  corMned  speech^  is  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Greek,  whereas  it  is  just  as  fully  verified 
in  English,  as  in  either.  The  English  term  vjord^ 
denotes  a  j^romise,  a  saying,  a  report,  an  account, 
short  statement,  or  even  the  whole  Scriptm-es. 
We  say,  a  mcoji  2^^(^dges  Ms  word^  for  he  gives  his 
^romise^  the  word  went  cobroad^  for  the  rej^ort 
&p'read — I  vrill  ask  you  one  luord^  for  one  question 
— in  CO  word^  for  in  short — the  ^cord  of  God^  for 
the  Bible^  &g.  Dr.  Smith's  criticism  then,  is  just 
as  if  a  foreigner  finding  our  term  vjord  as  signifying 
a  saying^  rejyort^  i&c.,  should  venture  to  assert  that 
it  never  signified  single  terms,  but  denotes  com- 
bined speech,  the  matter  conveyed  in  the  tenor  and 
toted  of  an  oral  or  written  address.  Any  school 
boy  speaking  the  English  language  would  laugh  at 
such  a  criticism.  Yet,  in  dead  languages,  it  passes 
for  the  most  profound  erudition.  6.  Lastly,  I 
object  to  this  criticism,  because  the  author  does 


220  mSPIKATIOX    OF   THE   SCKIPTUEES. 

not  show  the  bearing  of  the  examples  on  the  point 
at  issne.  Had  he  done  so,  he  nnist  have  left  him- 
self more  open  to  assanlt,  or  have  discovered  his 
error.  But  by  a  mere  general  reference  to  pas- 
sages, he  commits  himself  as  little  as  possible  ;  and 
most  readers  will  be  more  inclined  to  take  the 
argument  on  trust,  than  have  the  labor  of  scruti- 
nizing the  proof.  By  this  means  also,  he  may 
puzzle  many  whom  he  camiot  satisfy. 

But  it  is  an  unhallowed  task  Dr.  Smith  has 
undertaken.  It  is  a  wretched  thing  to  toil  in  en- 
deavoring to  show  how  little  the  Scriptures  deserve 
to  be  called  the  word  of  God.  His  first  attempt 
has  miserably  failed ;  and  if  it  is  only  in  this  feeble 
way  he  intends  to  sustain  om*  charge,  it  is  a  virtual 
confession  of  defeat. 


STUICTUEES 


THE   HOLY    SCEIPTUIiES. 


I  AM  surprised  to  find  in  Dr  Dick's  Essay  on  the 
inspiration  of  tlie  Holy  Scriptnres,  a  recognition  of 
the  mischieyous  distinctions  which  have  laid  a 
foundation  for  so  mnch  error  and  confusion  on  this 
plain  subject.  The  author  is  not  chargeable  to  the 
same  extent  with  any  of  those  whose  works  I  have 
been  reviewing,  nor  is  it  his  design  in  any  measure 
to  lower  the  Scriptures  in  accommodation  to  Ideo- 
logical illumination.  On  the  contrary,  he  rather 
adopts  than  vindicates  the  distinctions  ;  and  his 
admissions  unfavorable  to  full  verbal  inspiration 
are  rather  concessions  that  he  cannot  refuse,  than 
assertions  which  it  gives  him  pleasure  to  substan- 
tiate. Of  course,  though  I  acquit  him  of  treason  I 
cannot  clear  him  of  incompetency.  I  must  arraign 
him  as  havins:  surrendered  a  fortress  which  he 
might  have  held,  had  he  made  the  best  advantages 


222  ixspmATioN  of 

of  the  munitions  of  war,  with  which  the  royal 
arsenals  were  abundantly  supplied. 

In  some  respects  his  work  is  more  dangerous  to 
the  unsuspecting  Christian,  than  the  worst  of  the 
kind;  for  while  he  substantially  gives  up  proper 
inspiration  with  respect  to  many  things  both  as  to 
matter  and  words,  he  speaks  decidedly  and  strongly 
in  reprehension  of  j)artial  inspiration.  Tlie  reader 
is  led  to  think  that  no  higher  inspiration  can  bo 
thought  of,  than  that  vindicated  by  the  author. 

On  the  nature  and  designations  of  the  distinc- 
tions in  inspiration,  he  quarrels  with  the  common 
views  ;  but  as  long  as  he  adopts  them  substantially, 
he  is  involved  in  the  same  error.  He  divides  the 
kinds  or  degrees  of  inspiration  into  three  classes. 
"  1.  There  are  many  things  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  the  writers  might  have  known,  and  probably 
did  know,  by  ordinary  means."  "2.  There  are 
other  passages  of  Scripture,  in  composing  which, 
the  minds  of  the  writers  must  have  been  super- 
naturally  endowed  with  more  than  ordinary  vigor." 
"  3.  It  is  manifest,  with  respect  to  many  passages 
of  Scripture,  that  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat, 
must  have  been  directly  revealed  to  the  writerss." 
Let  us  attend  to  these  in  order.  With  respect  to 
the  first,  he  says,  "  As  persons  possessed  of  memo- 
ry, judgment,  and  the  other  intellectual  Acuities 
which  are  common  to  men,  they  were  able  to 
relate  events  in  which  thev  had  been  concerned ; 


THE   SCKIPTUKES^ 


223 


and  to  make  Biicli  occasional  reflections  as  were 
suggested  by  particular  subjects  and  occurrences." 
Now  this  is  very  true,  but  would  such  relations  be 
entitled  to  be  called  the. word  of  God?     Coidd  it 
be  said,  that  they  were  given  by  mspiration  of  God? 
Such  relations  might  be  true,  but  they  are  ,not 
inspired.     "In  these  cases,"  says  the  author,  "no 
supernatural  influence  was  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  mvigorate  their  minds  ;  it  was  only  necessary 
that  they  should  be  infallibly  preserved  from  error." 
ISTecessary  for  what  ?     If  it  be  necessary  to  produce 
a  true  narrative,  this  is  just.     But  if  the  assertion 
is  that  this  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  entitle  the 
narrative  to  be  called  the  word  of  God,  the  thing 
must  be  strongly  denied.     A  narr?itive  that  has 
nothing  more  than  this  cannot  be  said  to  be  "  writ- 
ten by  inspiration."     "  They  did  not  need  a  revela- 
tion," says  he,  "  to  inform  them  of  what  had  passed 
before  their  eyes,  nor  to  point  out  those  inferences 
and  moral  maxims,  which  were  obvious  to  every 
attentive   and  considerate  observer."     Yery  true, 
they  did  not  indeed   need  any  information  with 
respect  to  what  they  knew.     But  in  recording  what 
they  saw  before  their  eyes,  they  must  relate  that 
only  which  is  given  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  m 
the  very  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  their  narrative 
is  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  be  characterized  as 
given  by  inspiration.     "  Moses  could  tell,"  says  he, 
"  without  a  divine  afflatus,  that  on  such  a  night  the 


224  TXSPIEATTOX    OF 

Israelites  marclied  out  of  Egypt,  and  at  such  a 
place  thej  murmured  before  God ;  and  Solomon 
could  remark,  that  'a  soft  answer  tm-neth  away 
wrath,  but  grievous  words  stir  up  anger,'"  &c. 
^N"©  doubt  of  it ;  but  if  such  facts  in  the  narrative 
of  Moses,  have  been  told  without  a  divine  afflatus, 
they  are  not  a  part  pf  the  Scriptures  ;  and  if  Solo- 
mon had  nothing  but  his  own  6j)irit  in  recording 
these  moral  maxims,  they  may  be  true,  but  are  not 
entitled  to  be  received  as  dictates  of  inspiration. 
Inspiration  is  not  necessary  to  constitute  true  in- 
formation, but  surely  inspiration  is  necessary  for 
everything  that  is  said  to  be  inspired.  Can  a  thing 
be  inspired  without  inspiration?  Tlie  author  in- 
deed afterwards  asserts  that  such  things  require 
more  than  superintendence.  "  In  the  passages  of 
Scripture,"  says  he,  "  which  we  are  now  consider- 
ing, I  conceive  the  writers  to  have  been  not  merely 
superintended,  that  they  might  commit  no  error, 
but  likewise  to  have  been  moved  or  excited  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  record  particular  events,  and 
set  do^^Ti  particular  observations."  So  far  this  is 
in  the  right  path ;  but  it  does  not  go  flu-  enough. 
The  Holy  Ghost  not  only  pointed  out  the  particular 
events  and  observations,  but  if  the  account  can  be 
caUed  inspired,  the  whole  matter  and  language 
must  be  God's.  The  writers  of  Scripture  were  not 
like  amanuenses,  as  this  author  represents  them, 
copying  such  things  as  have  been  selected  for  them 


THE  scRirTURES.  225 

by  their  employer,  but  writing  as  he  dictated. 
There  is  indeed  something  in  the  case  that  camiot 
be  represented  by  an  amanuensis.  Tlie  sacred  wri- 
ters are  rational  instruments,  through  the  opera- 
tions of  whose  minds,  God  cpmmunicates  His  will. 
That  the  Almighty  is  able  to  speak  His  mind  in  this 
way,  so  that  the  same  thing  will  be  the  writing 
of  men  and  the  word  of  God,  is  quite  possible. 
The  mode  in  which  it  is  done,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
inquire. 

Let  us  now  glance  at  the  second  distinction, 
which  is  the  invigorating  of  the  memory  and  judg- 
ment. This  is  quite  foreign  to  the  question  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  That  some  things  in 
Scripture  are  not  beyond  the  reach  of  the  most 
ordinary  talents  ;  and  that  others  could  not  have 
been  produced  by  the  highest  order  of  created 
intellect  is  very  true.  It  is  admitted  also,  that 
passages  of  the  former  class  do  not  contain  the 
evidence  of  their  own  inspiration ;  and  that  the 
inspiration  of  the  latter  is  self-evident.  Dr.  Dick 
produces  many  passages  that  most  clearly  prove 
their  inspiration  by  their  sublimity ;  but  that  there 
are  innumerable  passages  that  do  not  prove  their 
divine  origin  by  any  intrinsic  elevation,  no  one  will 
dispute.  In  such  a  view  the  distinction  is  good. 
But  if  it  can  be  said  of  the  passages  of  the  latter 
class,  that  they  are  all  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
they  must  as  truly  be  the  work  of  God  as  the 


226  IXSPIEATION   OF 

former.  An  uninspired  man  miglit  have  ^r^itten 
tlie  account  of  Ananias  and  Sappliira  ;  but  if  it  is 
Scripture,  it  is  as  mncli  the  work  of  God,  as  the 
description  of  the  horse  in  the  book  of  Job.  It 
does  not  follow  that  man,  without  inspiration,  wrote 
everything  in  the  Scriptures,  which  might  have 
been  ^^Titten  without  inspiration.  Some  things  in 
Milton  might  have  been  written  by  an  ordinary  poet, 
but  the  meanest  things  in  Paradise  Lost  are  as  much 
the  work  of  Milton,  as  the  most  sublime  flights  of 
genius.  As  a  matter  of  fact  then,  though  a  man's 
w^'itings  may  display  more  or  less  ability,  they  can- 
not be  more  or  less  his ;  and  if  all  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  no  Scripture  can  be 
more  or  less  inspired  than  another,  though  different 
parts  may  contain  in  themselves  more  or  less  evi- 
dence of  inspiration.  It  may  be  said  that  God  has 
discovered  Himself  in  some  passages,  and  in  others 
He  has  not  discovered  Himself  But  if  all  Scri23ture 
is  given  by  inspiration,  no  passage  can  be  more  or 
less  inspired.  A  writer  cannot  be  more  or  less  the 
author  of  any  part  of  a  work,  of  every  part  of 
which  he  is  said  to  be  the  author.  If  every  part 
of  Scripture  which  might  have  been  written 
without  inspiration,  was  actually  written  without 
inspiration,  then  such  parts  cannot  be  said  to  l^e 
inspired.  On  the  other  hand,  if  such  parts  were 
wi'itten  by  inspiration,  they  are  on  a  level  with 
every  other  part,  as  to  inspiration.     That  this  in- 


Tire  SCRITTUEES.  227 

vigoration  of  mind  is  no  kind  or  degree  of  the 
inspiration  of  Scripture,  is  farther  evident  from  the 
consideration,  that  the  highest  measm-es  of  it  might 
have  been  given  to  the  sacred  writers,  while  not  a 
sentence  of  their  vrriting  might  have  been  inspired. 
To  inspire  a  man  with  vigor  of  intellect,  is  quite 
a  different  thing  from  inspiring^  him  with  a  com- 
munication. Il^ow,  it  is  not  the  writers  of  Scrip- 
tures Vvdio  are  said  to  be  inspired,  but  then*  wri- 
tings are  said  to  be  inspired.  "  All  Scripture  m 
given  bj  inspiration."  A  writer  might  indeed  be 
inspired  to  wTite  one  thing,  and  he  might  write 
another  without  inspiration.  But  this  supposition 
is  excluded  as  to  the  Scriptures,  since  the  insj)ira- 
tion  is  asserted,  not  of  the  writers,  but  of  the  ^vi-i- 
tings.  A  writer  might  be  inspired  with  genius  and 
vigor,  while  every  sentence  written  bj  him  might 
be  altogether  uninspired,  A  mere  simpleton  might 
become  a  Milton,  or  even  might  obtain  such  vigor 
as  to  enable  him  to  equal  the  sublimity  of  the  book 
of  Job ;  while  not  a  sentence  written  by  him  could 
be  called  the  word  of  God,  or  said  to  be  given  by 
inspiration  of  God.  The  invigorating  of  the  minds 
of  the  writers  of  Scripture,  therefore,  is  no  kind  or 
degree  of  the  inspiration  of  Scripture.  Whatever 
parts  of  the  Scripture,  tlierefore,  are  the  production 
of  men  supernaturally  invigorated,  are  not  the 
Yv^ord  of  God,  are  not  inspired  in  any  sense.  Were 
God  to  enable  a  child  to  write  a  poem  superior  to 


228  IXSPIEATIOX    OF 

the  Iliad,  vf  oiild  tliat  poem  be  tlie  book  of  God  ? 
Could  it  be  said  to  be  written  bj  the  inspiration  of 
God  ?  God  has  indeed  qualified  the  child  to  write 
the  book,  but  the  book  w^as  still  the  production  of 
the  child,  and  could  in  no  sense  be  called  God's, 
any  more  than  it  could  be  said  that  God  built  the 
city  of  Glasgow.  God  has  given  to  all  men  the 
talents  which  they  possess.  This,  however,  does 
not  entitle  their  writings  to  be  called  His.  And 
the  case  is  quite  the  same  in  this  res})ect,  whether 
the  talents  be  natural,  or  an  extraordinary  gift. 

With  respect  to  the  third  distinction,  it  is  true 
that  v>^hile  some  things  were  fully  Imown  to  the 
writers,  other  things  could  not  be  Imown  but  hy 
immediate  revelation.  But  this  is  not  the  question. 
The  question  is,  wdiether  things  that  could  be 
knovai  by  natural  means,  were  written  without 
ins^^iration,  or  written  by  an  inspiration  different  in 
kind  from  that  which  records  the  things  known 
only  by  revelation,  or  inferior  in  degree  to  it.  It 
required  no  inspiration  to  teach  a  man  what  he 
knew ;  but  it  required  inspiration  to  wi'ite  such  an 
account  of  this  as  could  be  called  the  word  of  God, 
or  be  said  to  be  written  by  inspiration.  Any  spec- 
tator at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  was  fit  to  say  ^'  Jesus 
wept ;"  but  if  it  can  be  said  that  this  is  Scripture, 
and  if  it  is  true,  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspu-ation  of  God ;"  it  required  as  much  inspira- 
tion to  write,  "  Jesus  wept,-'  as  to  record  vdiat  was 


THE  scruiPTUiJEs.  229 

said  of  tlie  things  "  wliicli  eyes  had  not  seen,  and 
ear  had  not  heard."  An  uninspired  man  might 
have  said  "  Jesus  ^vept !"  But  if  the  Evangelist 
said  it  without  inspiration,  it  is  not  Scripture.  As 
it  is  Scripture,  and  as  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  we  are  entitled  to  say  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  said  "  Jesus  wept,"  as  well  as  to 
say  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has  said,  "  Unto  us  a  child 
is  born,"  &c.  There  is  no  more  inspiration  in  the 
one  account  than  there  is  in  the  other.  The  great 
mistake  on  this  subject  has  arisen  from  considering 
inspiration  as  it  respects  the  inspired  person ; 
whereas  the  inspiration  asserted  2  Tim  iii.  16, 
respects  the  things  written.  ISTow,  if  every  part  of 
a  writing  be  given  by  inspiration,  no  part  of  it  can 
be  uninspired,  or  differently  inspired.  In  the 
relation  of  the  most  ordinary  fact,  God  must  have 
given  every  word  of  the  account,  else  it  cannot  be 
said  to  be  given  by  his  inspiration.  Every  part  of 
it  is  the  word  of  God,  and  the  inspiration  that 
records  the  deej)est  mysteries  cannot  go  beyond 
this.  Inspiration,  as  it  represents  the  inspired 
persons,  might  have  many  degrees.  Two  might  be 
inspired  with  the  knowledge  of  some  things  equally, 
while  one  of  them  might  be  inspired  with  the  laiow- 
ledge  of  many  things  unrevealed  to  the  other.  But 
the  question  is  not  whether  one  man  may  not  have 
been  more  inspired  than  another,  but  whether  one 
part  of  Scripture  is  more  inspired  than  another. 


230  n^SPIRATION   OF 

The  question  is  independent  even  of  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  the  thing  recorded  by  inspiration. 
The  inspiration  of  the  account  of  Satan's  lie  in 
deceiving  our  first  parents,  is  as  great  as  that 
which  records  the  promise,  "  The  seed  of  the  woman 
shall  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent," 

It  has  arisen  entirely  from  viewing  inspiration 
as  it  res]3ects  the  inspired  persons,  and  not  the 
things  written  by  them,  that  it  has  appeared  absurd 
to  speak  of  inspiration  with  respect  to  what  was 
known  by  natural  means,  and  that  could  have  been 
written  without  inspiration  or  without  revelation. 
To  avoid  this  absurdity  some  have  denied  inspira- 
tion with  respect  to  some  things,  while  others,  with 
more  reverence  for  the  Scriptures,  contrived  such 
distinctions  in  the  word  as  to  suit  the  various  cases. 
But  this  difficulty  docs  not  at  all  present  itself  when 
the  question  is  properly  stated.  It  is  not  said  that 
the  sacred  writers  were  inspired  with  knowledge 
which  they  previously  possessed.  But  it  is  said 
their  accounts  of  every  thing  recorded  by  them 
are  given  by  inspiration ;  and  this  is  as  true  with 
respect  to  things  previously  known  by  them,  as  it 
is  with  respect  to  things  communicated  by  revela- 
tion. When  they  wrote  what  they  knew,  and  could 
of  themselves  have  expressed,  both  the  matter  and 
the  words  were  God's,  as  much  as  when  they 
wrote  what  they  did  not  understand.  There  was 
no  need  to  be  mspired  with  the  knowledge  of  what 


THE  SCSIPTUEES.  231 

they  laicw,  but  every  word  in  tlieii*  account  of  this 
may  be  by  inspiration. 

The  author  himself  reasons  in  this  way,  when 
dealing  with  those  w^ho  maintain  partial  inspira- 
tion. "  The  notion  of  a  partial  inspiration,"  says 
he,  in  a  note,  "  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  want 
of  distinct  ideas  on  the  subject.  A  false  meaning 
is  amiexed  to  the  term ;  and  then  it  is  easy  to  show 
that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  every  part  of  Scripture. 
Inspiration  is  supposed  to  signify  the  supernatural 
communication  of  Imowledge  to  the  mind ;  and  if 
this  were  the  only  sense  of  the  word,  it  would  be 
true  that  inspu-ation  was  not  necessary  to  enable 
men  to  relate  what  they  knew  by  ordinary  means." 
So  far  the  observation  is  just.  But  in  what  follows 
the  writer  labors  under  a  mistake  as  great  as  that 
which  he  censures.  ''  But  if,"  says  he,  "  vre  under- 
stand by  inspiration,  the  general  assistance  afforded 
to  the  sacred  writers  according  to  the  exigency  of 
-  the  case,  and  VN-hich  supplied  the  want  of  know- 
ledge, or  rendered  it  correct,  or  excited  the  person 
to  communicate  it,  and  presided  over  his  thoughts 
and  expressions,  it  may  be  afiirmed  that  simple 
historians  were  inspired  as  well  as  prophets,"  &c. 
If  we  understcmd  lij  insjjiratian  the  general  assis- 
tance^ &G. !  That  is,  if  v\^e  understand  inspiration 
to  mean  what  it  does  not  mean,  which  in  no  instance 
it  can  be  shown  to  mean,  and  which  it  cannot  mean ; 
if  we  suppose  inspiration  to  mean  any  thing  we 


232  IXSFIEzVTIOX    CF 

clioose  to  take  out  of  it,  tlieii  the  case  will  have  no 
difficulty.  A  general  assistance  is  not  inspiration. 
Did  it  not  occur  to  the  writer  that  if  inspiration  is 
a  general  assertion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to 
exigency,  then  it  might  he  alleged  by  Socinians, 
that  there  is  not  in  Scripture  any  need  of  that 
inspiration  which  he  terms  revelation.  If  the 
word,  to  serve  his  purpose,  may  be  taken  at  so 
small  an  amount,  what  will  oblige  others,  on  any 
occasion,  to  take  it  at  a  higher  value?  The  just 
way  to  answer  those  who  labor  under  the  above 
mistake,  is  not  to  lower  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
but  to  show  that  inspiration  is  asserted  of  every 
part  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  not  that  the  sacred 
writers  were  inspired  to  know  what  they  previously 
knew.  When  an  amanuensis  writes  an  account  of 
a  death  for  a  newspaper,  he  may  write  \)j  dictation, 
as  well  as  when  he  records  a  new  theory.  In  like 
manner,  when  the  sacred  writers  wrote  an  account 
of  things  with  which  they  were  fully  acquainted, 
they  wrote  what  the  Spirit  dictated,  and  in  the 
words  of  the  Spirit. 

Here  then,  I  distinctly  charge  Dr  Dick  with  sur- 
rendering a  j)0st  to  the  enemy,  that  will  enable  him 
to  make  himself  master  of  the  field.  This  concession 
virtually  gives  up  inspiration.  A  general  assistance 
according  to  exigency,  is  not  inspiration.  I  call  on 
Dr.  Dick  to  show  what  part  of  the  instructions  of 
his  royal  Master  warrants  him  to  explain  inspira- 


Tirc    ^-CKTPTURES.  233 

tlon  in  so  lax  a  sense.  Is  it  optional  with  ns  to 
attach  any  meaning  that  suits  ns,  to  the  words  of 
Scripture?  If  a  general  assistance  according  to 
exigency  is  inspiration,  then  the  Christian  minister 
speaks  by  inspiration  in  the  pulpit ;  then,  indeed, 
all  Christians  are  inspired,  for  they  have  a  promise 
of  assistance  according  to  exigency.  What,  then, 
is  Dr.  Dick's  defence  of  inspiration,  but  an  effort 
to  retain  the  name,  at  the  expense  of  surrendering 
the  thing.  Dr.  Dick's  Bible  is  not  the  word  of 
God.  Many  parts  of  it  are  the  work  of  man,  witli 
slight  assistance  from  God.  Is  this  the  treatise  that 
has  so  long  been  considered  as  a  standard  on  the 
subject  of  inspiration  ?  Surely  the  Christian  pub- 
lic are  slightly  acquainted  with  this  important 
subject,  else  such  a  work  could  not  meet  their  ap- 
probation. Can  any  Christian  bear  the  idea  that 
the  Bible  has  been  composed  by  men  enjoying  only 
a  general  assistance  from  God,  according  to  exi- 
gency ?  If  this  is  true,  then  wdiy  may  not  others 
allege,  that  as  in  their  opinion  there  is  no  exigency 
for  any  thing  of  the  nature  of  inspiration  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  Vv^ord,  there  is  nothing  of  it  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures.  A  mere  invigoration  of 
the  memory  and  judgment,  was  all  that  was  neces- 
sary for  men  to  produce  the  Bible.  How  easy  a 
thing  it  is  to  mislead  the  public  ?  Let  a  IS'eologian 
declare,  from  a  pulpit  in  Edinburgh  or  Glasgow, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  not  inspired,  and  his  bias- 


234:  IXSPIEATION    OF 

phemy  will  shock  ail  minds.  But  let  an  ortliodox 
divine  explain  tlie  word  inspiration  in  a  sense  tliat 
equally  denies  the  proper  idea  contained  in  it,  and 
it  is  likely  he  will  be  admired  as  a  dee23  theologian, 
who  has  happily  arrived  at  the  philosophy  of  an 
abstruse  question,  and  an  able  vindicator  of  the 
])lenary  insjnration  of  the  Holy  Scri^ptures.  I  call 
on  Dr.  Dick  to  reconsider  his  concessions  on  tliis  all- 
important  subject,  and  to  cease  to  rob  us  of  the  book 
of  God.  He  has  taken  from  us  God's  book,  and 
we  cannot  be  content,  though  he  has  left  a  good 
book  in  its  stead. 

"  They  had  the  Bible.     Hast  thou  ever  heard 
Of  such  a  book  ?     The  author  God  liimself." 

Pollock. 

"  From  the  preceding  statement,"  says  our  au- 
thor, "  it  appears  that  we  do  not  apply  the  term 
inspiration,  in  the  same  sense  to  the  whole  of 
Scripture."  And  why  do  you  not,  Dr.  Dick? 
"What  authority  have  you  for  giving  two  senses  to 
the  word  in  the  same  occurrence  ?  A  word  may 
have  two  senses,  or  more,  in  diiierent  situations ; 
but  this  makes  the  passage,  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  give  two 
senses  to  the  vrord  in  the  same  place.  With 
respect  to  some  things,  it  must  be  revelation  ;  with 
respect  to  others,  only  assistance  ;  and  an  assistance 
infinitely  varied  according  to  circumstances.  Was 
ever   anything    more   arbitrary   than   this  ?      The 


TIIE    SCRIPTURES.  23^ 

aiitlior  speaks  of  partial  inspiration  as  implying  '^  a 
distinction  perfectly  arbitrary,  having  no  foundation 
on  anything  said  by  the  sacred  writers  themselves." 
But  is  it  more  arbitrary  than  his  own  distinction  in 
this  meaning  of  this  word?  Can  any  distinction 
have  less  foundation  m  any  thing  said  by  the  sacred 
writers  themselves?  Does  he  not. give  two  senses 
to  the  same  word  in  the  same  occurrence  ?  Does 
he  not  give  it  a  meaning  which  it  never  has — a 
meaning  perfectly  inconsistent  with  its  true  import? 
This  mode  of  defending  a  doctrine  by  a  double 
sense  of  a  word  in  the  same  place,  is  the  perfection 
of  the  skill  of  the  Jesuitical  defenders  of  Popery. 
When  an  antagonist  unskilled  in  their  mode  of 
fighting,  comes  forvv^ard  with  a  muster  of  texts, 
that  he  expects  from  their  clearness  v/ill  utterly 
confound  and  silence,  if  they  do  not  convince,  is 
himself  confounded,  when  he  finds  that  all  liis 
proofs  are  at  once  both  admitted  and  denied  by  the 
help  of  this  mode  of  explanation.  To  overturn  all 
the  self-righteous  refuges  of  superstition,  he  thun- 
ders out  the  words — "The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
cleanses  from  all  sin,"  convinced  that  there  is  no 
way  of  escape.  Eut  with  the  greatest  coolness  it 
is  promptly  replied,  "  Yery  true;  the  Church  of 
Home  never  taught  any  other  doctrine  but  this. 
The  blood  of  Jeslis  Christ,  and  nothing  but  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  does  indeed  cleanse  from  all 
sin ;  that  is,  Christ's  blood  takes  away  the  eternal 


23 G  TXSPTRATION   OF 

punishment  of  onr  sins ;  but  there  remains  the 
temporal  punishment  due  to  our  sins,  which  we 
must  suffer  for  ourselves,  eitlier  here  or  hereafter." 
And  verily,  if  Dr.  Dick  is  justified  in  explaining  the 
word  inspiration  in  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  in  two  senses, 
the  same  liberty  cannot  be  denied  to  the  doctrines 
of  Popery. 

But  let  us  hear  the  writer's  reason  for  not  giving 
this  word  the  same  sense  with  respect  to  all  the 
inspired  writings.  "  Because  "  says  he,  "  the  same 
degree  of  assistance  was  not  necessary  in  the  com- 
position of  every  part  of  it."  Then  the  Bible  is 
not  the  book  of  God,  but  a  book  composed  by  man, 
with  less  or  more  of  God's  assistance,  according  as 
it  was  needed.  If  it  be  the  word  of  God,  if  every 
part  of  it  can  justly  be  said  to  be  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  the  whole  must,  in  the  same  sense,  be 
God's.  There  is  no  more  authority  to  give  two 
senses  to  the  word  insj^iration  in  the  same  place, 
than  there  is  to  give  two  senses  to  the  word  God, 
and  to  say,  that  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  asserts  that  some  of 
the  Scriptures  are  a  revelation  from  the  true  God, 
and  that  other  parts  of  them  have  been  inspired  by 
the  god  of  this  world.  A  book  composed  by  God's 
assistance,  coidd  not  be  said  to  be  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God.  Dr.  Dick's  Sermons,  I  hope,  are 
compositions  of  this  kind ;  but,  1  dare  say,  he  does 
not  pretend  to  inspiration.  This  is  deeply  erro- 
neous lano'uaov,  Dr.  Dick.     This  is  a  solution  of  a 


THE   SCllIi'TLT.ES.  23T 

difficulty  as  to  inspiration,  tliat  destroys  inspiration 
itself.  While  it  vindicates  the  name  of  inspiration, 
as  applied  to  all  the  Scriptures,  it  not  only  ex- 
pressly excludes  much  of  them  from  proper  inspi- 
ration, but  lays  a  foundation  for  the  denial  of  it  as 
to  all.  The  Bible  is  not  a  good  book  written  by 
God's  assistance  ;  but  is  God's  own  book,  of  which 
lie  is  the  "cery  Author^  in  as  true  a  sense,  as  Dr. 
Dick  is  the  author  of  this  Essay  on  Inspiration. 
Much  of  it,  indeed,  respects  ordinary  matters ;  but 
even  this  is  His  as  truly,' and  as  fully,  as  the  rest. 
Though  the  writers  might  have  related  many  things 
in  their  own  language  without  God,  yet  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  they  did  not  write  anything  without 
Him ;  for  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God."  This  is  my  polar  star  on  this  question.  As 
long  as  my  eye  is  upon  it,  I  do  not  fear  to  steer  my 
course  w^ith  safety.  By  losing  sight  of  this.  Dr. 
Dick  has  got  himself  entangled  in  the  theories  of 
human  wisdom,  those  hallucinations  that  promise  a 
refuge  to  the  unwary  mariner,  but  hide  rocks  and 
quicksands  under  a  vapory  surface. 

"  In  some  parts,"  says  Dr.  Dick,  '^  If  I  may 
speak  so,  there  is  more  of  God  than  in  others." 
Doubtless.  But  in  what  sense  is  this  ?  A  sense 
nothing  to  the  purpose  of  your  argument.  Dr.  Dick. 
There  is  certainly  more  of  God,  in  those  passages 
that  reveal  the  divine  character,  than  in  those  parts 
that  speak  of  temporal  things.     But  this  is  not  the 


238  IXSPIKATION   OF 

question.  K  God  is  tlie  autlior  of  every  j^art  of  the 
Eible,  there  is  no  part  of  it,  of  which  He  can  be 
said  to  be  more  the  author  than  another.  But  let 
ns  hear  the  writer's  own  ilkistration.  "  THien  a 
prophet  predicts  the  events  of  futurity,  or  an 
Apostle  makes  laiown  the  mysteries  of  redemption, 
it  is  God  alone  who  speaks  ;  and  the  voice  or  the 
pen  of  a  man,  is  merely  the  instrument  employed 
ibr  the  communication  of  His  will."  ISTow  this 
illustration  is  not  at  all  warranted  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. Man  is  a  rational  instrument  in  delivering 
the  doctrines  of  salvation,  and  speaks  in  his  own 
proper  person,  using  his  ovrn  arguments  and  illus- 
trations, as  much  as  when  he  relates  facts  that 
occurred  before  his  own  eyes.  Indeed,  it  is  man 
that  directly  speaks,  and  it  is  only  from  Scripture 
testimony  that  we  learn  that  the  doctrines,  argu- 
ments, illustrations  and  language  of  the  Aj^ostle, 
are  the  doctrines,  arguments,  illustrations  and  lan- 
guage of  God.  And  "  when  Moses  relates  the 
miracles  of  Egypt,  and  the  journeys  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  Wilderness,  or  the  Evangelists  relate  the 
history  of  Chi-ist,"  they  sj^eak  only  what  God  gave 
them,  or  in  the  words  which  he  gave  them,  though 
"  they  tell  nothing  but  what  they  formerly  knew." 
Dr.  Dick  says  that  "  without  the  assistance  of  the 
Spirit,  they  could  not  have  told  it  so  well."  But 
this  is  giving  up  inspiration,  and  substituting  assis- 
tance in  its  place.     Without   divine   assistance  a 


THE   SCEIPTUTES.  239 

man  cannot  preach  so  well.  But  this  is  not  inspi- 
ration. If,  in  such  instances,  it  is  lawful  for  Dr. 
Dick  to  scoop  out  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
substitute  a  fancy  of  his  own  in  its  place,  others 
may  with  equal  propriety  allege  that  such  assis- 
tance was  all  that  was  necessary  to  record  the  docu- 
ments of  our  salvation.  If  such  assistance  is  inspi- 
ration as  to  some  things,  why  may  it  not  be  inspi- 
ration as  to  others  ?  Inspiration  was  not  given 
merely  to  enable  the  sacred  writers  to  tell  their 
story  well,  but  that  their  narrative  might  be  the 
true  word  of  God.  Dr.  Dick's  Bible,  then,  is  quite 
a  different  book  from  mine.  My  Bible  is  God's 
book,  which  God  Himself  has  made ;  yea,  every 
part  of  which  he  has  made.  How  lamentable  is  it 
to  find  the  writer  of  an  essay  long  recognized  as  a 
standard  on  the  subject  of  insj)iration,  avowing  that 
much  of  his  Bible  is  the  work  of  man,  assisted 
according  to  exigency  by  God !  Dr.  Dick  has 
written  an  Essay  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  which  he  virtually  gives  up  the  inspiration 
of  much  of  them.  To  speak  of  plenary  inspiration 
with  such  views,  is  to  hold  the  word  and  to 
renounce  the  thing  signified  by  it. 

"  In  some  cases,"  says  the  Bisho23  of  Lincoln,  as 
quoted  with  approbation  by  this  author,  "  inspira- 
tion only  produced  correctness  and  accuracy  in 
relating  past  occurrences,  or  in  reciting  the  words 
of  others."     Now  is  this  all  that  inspiration  does  in 


240  rNsrmATiox  of 

the  cases  alluded  to  ?  Do  tlie  narrators  of  sacred 
liistory  select  their  facts,  or  recite  the  language  of 
others  without  God  ?  But  even  more  than  this,  I 
affirm,  is  imported  in  inspiration,  even  in  reporting 
that  Judas  hanged  himself.  The  meaning  ex- 
pressed, and  the  expression  itself,  have  God  for 
their  author,  else  it  could  not  be  said,  "  all  Scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  2  Tim.  iii.  16, 
is  of  more  weight  with  me,  than  that  of  all  the 
speculations  of  human  wisdom. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  speaks 
here  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  of  Scripture, 
whereas  the  question  respects  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  common  confounding  of  these  two 
things  has  produced  much  of  that  confusion  in 
which  the  subject  is  involved,  and  has  driven  wri- 
ters to  unscriptural  distinctions  in  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  The  sacred  writers  had  no  need  to  be 
inspired  with  the  knowledge  of  facts  which  they 
abeady  knew,  but  to  make  their  relations  the  word 
of  God,  they  must ^11  be  given  by  His  inspiration, 
both  in  matter  and  language.  This  distinction  is 
confounded  by  Dr.  Dick.  While  his  work  is  enti- 
tled an  Essay  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, he  begins  by  defining  inspu-ation,  as  it  relates 
to  the  inspired  writers,  and  not  as  it  relates  to 
things  written  by  them.  ''I  define  inspiration," 
says  he,  "to  be  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
on    the   understandings,   imaginations,   memories, 


THE    SCKIFIUKES.  241 

and  other  mental  powers  of  the  sacred  writers, 
bj  which  they  were  qualified  to  communicate  to 
the  world  the  Imowledge  of  the  will  of  God." 
Kow,  if  instead  of  giving  a  definition,  independent  of 
Scripture  authority,  he  had  simply  referred  to  the 
passage  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  that  asserts  inspiration,  and 
mves  an  exhibition  and  illustration  of  the  meanincj 
of  the  Greek  word  as  used  in  tlie  passage,  he  would 
necessarily  have  been  led  into  the  right  path.  For 
here  inspiration  respects  the  Scriptures ;  and  all 
Scriptures  is  equally  said  to  possess  it.  But  inspi- 
ration as  it  respects  inspired  persons  may  be  vari- 
ous in  degree  to  any  extent  that  may  please  God. 
Tliis  is  one  of  the  many  instances,  in  which  the 
worst  effects  proceed  from  considering  questions 
with  respect  to  divine  truth  in  aii  abstract  manner, 
w^ithout  any  reference  to  the  passages  on  which 
they  are  founded.  On  this  subject  there  was  no 
need  of  a  human  definition  of  the  term.  It  would 
have  been  much  more  useful  to  exhibit  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  with  any  illustration  that  might  be 
afforded  by  the  use  of  it  in  Greek  writers.  The 
vr-joi  &£o'rfvs-o(iloi,  OY  inspired  dreams  of  the  heathen 
would  have  given  us  a  more  precise  idea  of  the 
meaning  of  the  term,  than  the  most  accurate  ab- 
stract definition.  Li  treating  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures,  there  is  no  necessity  to  enter  into 
discussions  about  the  divine  operation  on  the  facul- 
ties of  their  mind.     This  is  not  the  subject.     On 


2i2  IXSPUiATION    OF 

this  there  is  nothing  revealed,  and  all  definitions 
with  respect  to  this,  must  therefore  be  the  work  of 
fancy.  That  the  Holy  Ghost  sj^ake  and  wrote 
through  man,  is  a  fact  attested  by  the  Scriptures, 
but  how  he  influenced  their  minds,  we  are  not 
informed.  It  is  not  then  to  be  expectec^  that  we 
are  to  obtain  much  light  on  the  subject,  from  the 
definitions  of  divines.  The  only  proj)er  definition, 
is  a  definition  of  the  word,  that  is,  an  explanation 
of  the  word  as  it  is  used  in  the  language. 

This  writer  does  not  expressly  deny  verbal  inspi- 
ration in  the  fullest  extent,  but  the  theory  which 
he  favors  does  not  require  this  ;  and  with  respect 
to  some  things,  he  considers  that  it  does  not  exist. 
Infallible  direction  is  what  he  pleads  for  on  this 
2)oint.  l^ow  direction  is  not  inspiration,  though  it 
might  equally  secure  a  fair  rej)resentation  of  truth. 
And  I  complain,  that  he  does  not  rest  verbal  inspi- 
ration on  its  main  evidence,  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  There 
are  many  other  sound  and  substantial  arguments, 
and  these  the  author  states  in  a  very  convincing 
manner.  But  the  direct  and  main  evidence,  which 
applies  to  every  case  is  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  which  I  have 
not  observed  among  the  author's  proofs  of  verbal 
inspiration.  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God."  The  writing  is  the  thing  whose  inspira- 
tion is  asserted.  It  camiot  then  be  a  question 
whether  words  belong  to  a  writing.  It  is  by  over- 
looking this  and  treating  of  inspiration  as  it  respects 


'JlIE   SCKirXUEES.  243 

the  sacred  writers  that  false  theories  have  origi- 
nated. It  is  this  that  has  led  the  author  to  such 
concessions  as  this.  "With  respect  to  other  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  and  particularly  those  which 
treat  of  such  subjects  as  might  have  been  known 
without  revelation,  it  is  not  necessary  to  maintain, 
that  the  language  was  inspired  precisely  in  the 
same  sense  as  in  those  already  considered."  After 
what  I  have  already  said,  it  cannot  be  necessary  to 
spend  time  in  showing,  that  if  such  things  are 
inspired  at  all,  they  must  be  inspired  precisely  in 
the  same  sense  with  everything  else  that  is  said  to 
be  inspii'ed.  "What  I  would  observe  now  is,  that 
such  assertions  as  this,  result  from  holding  the 
necessity  of  inspiration  on  general  principles  only, 
and  not  on  the  expressed  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tm-es  themselves.  As  long  as  we  believe  verbal 
inspiration  on  the  authority  of  its  general  necessity 
only,  it  is  obvious  that  to  this  general  necessity 
there  may  be  exceptions.  And  here  are  the  excep- 
tions. There  are  some  things  that  do  not  seem  to 
need  this  verbal  inspiration.  But  if  we  look  to  the 
testimony  of  Scripture,  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  we  will  find 
that  it  demands  the  same  inspiration  in  every  part 
of  the  word  of  God. 

"  We  may  conceive,"  says  he,  "  the  sacred  wri- 
ters to  have  been  permitted  more  freely  to  exer- 
cise their  own  faculties."  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  does  not 
permit  us,  Dr.  Dick,  to  roam  at  large  on  this  sub- 


24:4:  IlN'SriHATION    OF 

ject,  and  to  iiidnlge  our  own  random  conceptions. 
But  tlie  fullest  inspiration  by  no  means  implies  any 
constraint  in  tlie  exercise  of  tlie  faculties  of  the 
sacred  writers.  They  were  as  free  on  the  doctrine 
of  atonement,  as  in  historical  facts.  ''  The  V\'ords," 
says  he,  "were  not  formerly  dictated  any  more 
than  the  sentiments."  This  virtually  gives  up  the 
insj)iration  of  such  parts  of  Scripture  both  as  to 
words  and  sentiments,  and  substitutes  somethino- 
else  in  its  stead.  We  can  know  nothing  of  the 
process  of  inspiration  on  any  subject.  "But  they 
seemed,"  says  he,  "  to  proceed  like  other  historians 
and  moralists,  and  to  express  themselves  in  their 
natural  manner."  They  did  so  on  the  doctrines  of 
salvation  as  well  as  in  the  relation  of  the  most 
trivial  facts.  Paul  used  his  natural  manner  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  well  as  Luke  in  his 
account  of  Paul's  shipwreck. 

It  would  have  been  an  essential  advantage  to 
this  essay,  had  the  author  treated  ins]3iration  as  a 
matter  of  revelation  merely.  This  would  not  only 
have  given  a  greater  unity  to  the  work,  but  would 
have  led  to  a  fuller  exhibition  of  what  the  Scrip- 
tures actually  teach  on  the  subject.  In  exhibiting 
directly  the  meaning  and  bearings  of  all  the  pas- 
sages that  reveal  anything  on  this  point,  the  full 
extent  of  verbal  inspiration  could  not  have  lain  hid  ; 
and  a  fuller  scope  would  have  been  given  for  a 
reply   to   objections.     In   vindicating   inspiration. 


TUE  SCKirXUEES.  245 

tliere  certainlj^  was  no  more  necessity  for  a  vindi- 
cation of  miracles,  and  tlie  exhibition  of  the  gene- 
ral evidence  of  the  anthenticity  of  the  Scriptures, 
than  there  would  have  been,  had  the  subject  been 
the  incarnation  or  the  atonement.  Inspiration  is 
as  much  a  matter  of  revelation,  as  justification  by 
faith.  Both  stand  equally  on  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  In  teaching  and  defending  the  doc- 
trine of  inspiration,  then,  the  authenticity  of  the 
Scriptures  as  a  revelation  from  God,  should  have 
been  taken  for  granted ;  and  the  contest  should 
not  have  been  with  Hume  and  Gibbon,  but  with 
Priestley  and  the  evangelical  theologians,  who 
speak  of  partial  inspiration.  The  authenticity  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  their  inspiration,  are  cpiite 
different  questions.  Multitudes  who  receive  the 
Scriptures  as  containing  a  revelation  from  God, 
deny  their  insj)U'ation,  or  modify  it,  so  as  in  effect 
to  destroy  it.  "With  these  solely,  and  not  with 
deists,  the  battle  of  inspiration  ought  to  be  fought. 
It  was  not  a  little  surprising  then  to  me,  to  find  a 
considerable  portion  of  this  Essay  taken  up  with 
the  infidel,  and  still  more  surprising  to  meet  the 
following  observation :  "  Paul  afiirms,  in  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  that  'all  Scrij^ture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God ; '  but  every  person  must  be 
sensible  that  this  assertion  is  not  in  itself  a  sufii- 
cient  ground  for  believing  the  inspiration  of  the 
writings  to  which   he   refei'S.''     And  what   other 


246  liTSPIKATION   01' 

ground  can  you  have,  Dr.  Dick,  for  believing  inspi- 
ration ?  Is  not  the  authority  of  Paul  as  fully  able 
to  establish  inspiration,  as  to  establish  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinit}^  ?  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  must  first  be  established  ;  but  this 
is  equally  true  with  respect  to  every  other  doctrine. 
Would  any  writer  think  it  necessary  in  establishing 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace,  through  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  vindicate  miracles,  and 
establish  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures  ?  Cer- 
tainly not ;  because  the  people  with  whom  he  con- 
tends admit  this.  In  like  manner,  those  who  deny 
or  modify  inspiration,  admit  the  Scriptures  as  con- 
taining a  revelation  from  God,  and  it  is  a  waste  of 
time  to  argue  this  point  with  them.  True,  indeed, 
the  infidel  denies  inspiration,  but  he  denies  also 
the  authenticity  ;  and  it  is  useless  to  vindicate  the 
former  till  the  latter  is  established.  Lidecd,  there 
is  no  way  of  establishing  inspiration,  but  by  the 
Scriptures ;  and  Scripture  authority  will  not  pass 
with  the  infidel.  I  am  aware  that  many  arguments 
for  inspiration  may  be  founded  on  the  authenticity, 
and  that  it  is  evident  that  if  the  Scriptures  are 
authentic,  they  must  be  inspired.  But  I  do  not 
blame  the  author  for  taking  advantage  of  argu- 
ments of  this  kind.  On  the  contrary,  I  fully  ap- 
prove of  his  conduct  on  this  point.  But  he  might 
have  equally  availed  himself  of  all  such  arguments, 
taking  the  authenticity  for  granted.     What  I  mean 


TILE   SCRIPTUKES.  247 

is,  tliat  a  vrork  on  inspiration  ouglit  to  liave  treated 
the  subject  as  a  matter  of  revelation,  as  mucli  as  a 
treatise  on  faith  or  redemption  ;  and  that  by  acting 
on  another  principle,  the  author  has  produced  con- 
fusion in  his  work,  and  has  unjustly  degraded 
inspiration,  as  if  it  must  be  received  on  different 
crrounds  from  those  on  which  the  other  doctrines 
of  revelation  are  rested.  The  Scriptures  are  as 
much  an  ultimate  authority  on  this  question,  as 
any  other  question  of  revealed  truth.  A  very  con- 
siderable proportion  of  this  work  is  not  at  all  on 
the  subject  of  its  title. 

I  cannot  conclude  my  remarks  Vvdthout  extract- 
ing an  observation  from  the  preface  to  this  work, 
which  appears  to  me  true,  striking,  and  important. 
"  An  attentive  observer,*'  says  Dr.  Dick,  "  cannot 
have  failed  to  remark  a  very  striking  peculiarity 
of  the  present  timxCS.  It  is  the  influence  of  the 
principles  of  infidelity  upon  many  professors  of  the 
Christian  religion.  The  bold  opposition  made  to 
some  doctrines  of  revelation,  renders  them  ashamed 
or  afraid  to  own  them,  without  at  least  such  quali- 
fication and  changes,  as  shall  smooth  their  asperi- 
ties and  lessen  their  apparent  incredibility.  In 
some  instances  such  concessions  are  made,  as 
amount  to  a  complete  surrender  of  the  point  in 
debate.  Tlie  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  an 
article  of  our  faith,  against  which  infidels  have 
directed  all  the  arguments  which  tlieir  ingenuity 


248  IXSPIEATION   OF 

could  furnish,  and  all  the  abuse  which  their  malice 
could  invent.  What  is  the  consequence?  Many 
professed  champions  of  Christianity  seem  to  have 
concluded  that  the  article  is  not  tenable,  because  it 
has  been  previously  assailed  ;  and  accordingly,  they 
have  abandoned  it  wholly,  or  in  j^art  to  the  enemy. 
Few  writers,  indeed,  who  now  undertake  to  defend 
the  cause  of  revelation,  hold  the  plenary  inspira- 
tion of  the  ScrijDtures.  That  idea  has  become 
unfashionable  ;  it  is  classed  with  other  opinions  of 
our  fathers,  which  are  exploded  as  the  dreams  of 
enthusiasm  and  superstitious  credulity,  and  he 
only  is  supposed  to  entertain  rational  sentunents  on 
the  subject,  who  looks  upon  the  Sacred  Books  as 
partly  human  and  partly  divine ;  as  a  heteroge- 
neous compound  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  the 
stories  and  sentiments  of  men."  '*Tlie  spirit  of 
infidelity  is  working  among  Christians  themselves." 
The  application  of  this  to  the  works  which  I  have 
reviewed,  is  perfectly  obvious.  Some  evangelical 
divines  of  the  present  day,  unlike  their  uncom- 
promising predecessors,  have  endeavored  to  recon- 
cile the  favor  of  the  world  with  the  cross  of  Christ. 
By  the  perfection  of  then*  wisdom,  they  think  they 
have  succeeded  in  finding  a  way  to  declare  the 
coimsel  of  God  substantially,  without  exciting  the 
mortal  enmity  of  the  world,  as  constantly  happened 
from  the  less  skillful  address  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles.     If  the  Gospel  cannot  conquer  the  obsti- 


THE   SCEIPTUEES.  249 

nacj  of  the  infidel,  sldlM  management  it  is  tlionglit, 
may  make  them  peaceable  neighbors.  It  was  quite 
imprudent,  then,  in  the  Apostle  to  act  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  not  "  shunning  to  declare  the  whole  coun- 
sel of  God."  Had  he  acted  towards  the  philosophers 
of  his  day,  as  some  eyangelical  divines  have  towards 
the  learned  IS'eologians,  instead  of  being  acGOunted 
a  "babbler,"  he  might  have  been  treated  as  the 
learned  and  liberal  introducer  of  a  new  science. 
And  if,  instead  of  denouncing  all  the  opposers  of 
his  doctrines  as  the  enemies  of  God,  he  had  pro- 
posed his  scheme  as  deep  speculations  to  exercise 
the  ingenuity  of  the  wise,  he  might  have  been 
hailed  as  another  Socrates. 

While  I  gladly  acquit  Dr.  Dick  of  this  compro- 
mising spirit,  I  must  charge  his  Essay  with  the 
same  radical  errors  as  the  other  systems.  He  ad- 
mits the  same  mischievous  distinctions,  that  are  only 
another  name  for  denying  proper  inspiration  to  a 
great  part  of  the  Scriptures.  The  inspiration 
which  he  avows,  has  "  such  qualifications  and 
changes,  as  smooth  its  asperities,  and  lessens  its 
apparent  incredibility."  In  some  instances,  such 
concessions  are  made,  as  amount  to  a  complete  sur- 
render of  the  point  in  debate.  "  Inspiration  he  has 
abandoned  in  part  to  the  enemy."  He  indeed  un- 
dertakes to  defend  "  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures ;"  but  it  is  only  the  tiame  which  he  ex- 
tends in  a  plenary  manner.     He  concedes  as  expli- 


250  INSPIRATION   OF 

citly  as  any  other  writer,  that  the  word  does  not 
applj  in  the  same  sense  to  all  parts  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  is  virtually  to  deny  the  inspiration  of 
such  parts.  He  does  not,  indeed,  like  Mr.  Oaniel 
Wilson,  "look  upon  the  Sacred  Boolvs  as  partly 
Iranian  and  partly  divine ;"  but  I  was  surprised  to 
find,  in  reading  Dr.  Dick's  Essay,  that  Mr.  Daniel 
Wilson  was  not  the  first  v\dio  speaks  of  nature  e7id~ 
ing^  and  remlation  heginning^  with  reference  to 
inspiration.  "When  I  first  found  this  distinction  in 
Ml*.  Wilson's  Lectures,  I  little  expected  to  discover 
afterwards,  that  the  original  honors  of  this  infidel 
phraseology,  belong  to  the  Essay  on  the  Inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  If  Dr.  Dick  is  justified 
in  spealdng  of  nature,  as  going  a  certain  length  in 
the  composition  of  the  Bible,  I  cannot  see  why  he 
should  condemn  those  who  "look  upon  the  sacred 
books  as  partty  human  and  partly  divine." 


In  the  part  which  I  have  taken  in  the  contro- 
versy on  Inspu*ation,  it  has  given  me  great  pain 
that  I  have  been  obliged  to  contend  with  the  real 
friends  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  on  a  subject  in  which  all 
believers  might  be  ex]3ected  to  harmonize.  From 
various  cii'cumstances,  it  is  not  surprising,  that  in 
many  things  there  should  be  difterence  of  views 
among  Christians.     But  what  can  be  the  temptation 


THE    BCKTPTUllKS.  251 


to  lower  the  character  of  the  word  of  God  ?  Might 
it  not  be  expected,  that  all  would  unite  in  exalting 
tlie  perfection  of  our  common  standard  ?  What  is 
it  that  operates  in  the  mind  of  a  believer  to  induce 
him  to  toil  in  deo-radius:  the  oracles  of  heaven  ? 

In  the  investigation  of  all  subjects  connected  with 
revelation,  though  I  do  not  overlook  the  importance 
of  bringing  the  Christian  public  along  with  me,  yet 
my  first  study  is  accurately  to  ascertain  and  exhibit 
the  mind  of  God.  I  never  think  of  measuring  my 
conclusions  with  the  limits  assigned  by  the  learned. 
When  I  see  truth,  I  am  not  ashamed  to  avow  it, 
nor  afraid  to  defend  it.  And  the  cross  of  adhering 
to  it,  few  have  felt  more  heavy,  or  have  greater 
temptations  to  throw  it  away.  Yet  while  I  spare 
not  error,  my  love  to  those  in  error  is  not  abated. 
My  brotherhood  extends  not  to  party,  but  to  the 
whole  household  of  God.  While  I  labor  to  unfold 
truth,  I  presume  not  to  dictate;  and  tliough  a 
Christian  should  reject  every  thiug  which  I  hold, 
but  the  way  of  salvation  through  faith,  in  the 
righteousness  of  the  Son  of  God,  I  will  receive  him, 
as  I  trust  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  has  received  me. 

In  reasoning  from  Scripture  on  this  subject  of 
inspiration,  and  on  every  other,  it  is  of  great 
importance  that  we  never  lose  sight  of  the  tre- 
mendous responsibility  which  we  incur.  It  is  no 
light  matter  to  attempt  to  influence  the  belief  of 
the  people  of  God,   witli   respect   to   subjects   on 


252  ixsprPvATiox  of  the  sceipitjees. 

which  He  lias  expressed  His  mind.  It  is  a  fearful 
thing  to  labor  to  misrepresent  the  divine  testimony 
in  any  matter.  It  is  bad  to  err,  but  it  is  worse  to 
exert  ourselves  to  pervert  others.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  a  dehghtful  idea  to  be  in  any  measm^e 
instrumental  in  leading  forward  the  minds  of  the 
Lord's  people,  to  a  more  full  understanding  of  His 
word.  Nothing  but  the  conviction  that  I  am 
pleading  the  cause  of  God  and  truth,  could  console 
me  in  opposing  so  many  distinguished  writers  on 
the  nature  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. I  rise  from  my  labors,  myself  much  edified 
and  confirmed,  and  with  an  increasing  zeal  to  con- 
vince aU  my  fellow-Christians.  And  why  should  I 
not  hope  that  the  most  exalted  views  of  the  word 
of  God  shall  prevail  ?  It  is  not  a  party  question. 
Many  of  aU  parties  seem  inadequately  acquainted 
with  the  subject.  But  there  is  no  obstacle  to  pre- 
vent any  from  embracing  the  most  honorable  views 
of  the  oracles  of  God.  Though,  therefore,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Most  High  may  unhappily  continue  to 
differ  in  many  things ;  in  this  one  thing  all  may  be 
expected  to  unite.  Let  us  all  celebrate  the  perfec- 
tions of  our  common  standard — the  Bible. 


THE    SANCTIFICATION 


FIKST    DAY    OF    THE    WEEK. 


SoivrE  Christians  have  supposed  that  the  'New 
Testament  does  not  sanction  the  religious  obser- 
vance of  the  iirst  day  of  the  week,  and  that  such  a 
practice  is  founded  on  a  misconception  of  the  law 
of  Moses.  As  this  is  a  matter  of  the  first  impor- 
tance in  Christianity,  it  is  right  that  it  should  be 
investigated  in  the  fullest  manner.  Till  the  Scrip- 
tures have  been  examined  throughout,  with  the 
utmost  deliberation  and  impartiality,  it  would  be 
rash  to  incur  the  hazard  of  annulling  what  God 
may  have  enjoined.  Let  us  discard,  -without  cere- 
mony, all  the  commandments  of  men ;  but  let  us 
take  heed  lest,  in  the  intemperance  of  our  zeal,  we 
do  not  dismiss  with  them  any  of  the  command- 
ments of  God.  After  the  fullest  and  most  calm 
deliberation,  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  appears  to  me 


254:  TEE   S^U3BATH. 

decisive.  I  shall,  therefore,  for  the  satisfaction  of 
mj  brethren  who  may  have  doubts  on  this  subject, 
submit  to  them  the  grounds  of  my  opinion.  In 
doing  this  I  am  conscious  that  prejudice  for  anti- 
quity has  as  little  weight  with  me  as  fondness  for 
novelty.  I  have  desired,  above  all  things,  to  know 
the  will  of  God,  and  vdien  I  think  I  have  discov- 
ered it,  I  am  anxious  to  impart  it  to  my  brethren. 
I  am  impatient  to  save  them  from  the  sin  of  teach- 
ing the  disciples  of  Jesus  to  despise  what  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  them  to  reverence,  and  of  adding  to 
tlie  offence  of  the  cross,  by  a  tenet  unsupported  by 
the  authority  of  God.  In  examining  this  subject, 
I  entreat  those  of  sentiments  opposite  to  these 
inculcated  in  this  paper,  to  dismiss  from  their 
minds  everything  but  the  desire  of  finding  truth. 
Let  the  fear  of  God  banish  all  partiality  for  opin- 
ions already  conceived,  and  all  undue  desire  of 
vindicating  what  has  already  been  avovvxd.  It  is 
a  difficult  thing  to  review  our  own  opinions,  espe- 
cially when  published,  with  the  impartialit}^  which 
we  can  bestow  upon  those  of  others  ;  yet,  without 
this  attainment,  no  man  is  thoroughly  fitted  for 
discussing  subjects  of  controversy.  It  is  an  awful 
thing,  in  giving  the  import  of  God's  testimony  upon 
any  matter,  to  give  it  a  turn  to  suit  our  own  views  ; 
yet,  a  bias  of  this  kind  is  sometimes  discoverable, 
as  well  in  intemperate  reformers,  as  in  the  pre:]u- 
diced  defenders  of  ancient  error. 


THE    SAUBATD.  255 

In  examming  tlie  evidence  on  this  subject,  it  has 
appeared  to  me,  that  they  must  have  taken  a  very 
partial  view  of  it,  who  have  supposed  that  the 
seventh-day-Sahbath  rests  on  the  Mosaic  law.  K 
we  consult  the  book  of  Genesis,  we  shall  find  that 
it  was  instituted  two  thousand  years  before  the 
law,  and  is  founded  upon  reasons  that  have  no 
exclusive  respect  to  any  nation,  or  to  any  dispen- 
sation. "  Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were 
finished,  and  all  the  host  of  them.  And  on  the 
seventh  day  God  ended  His  ^vork  which  He  had 
made;  and  He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from 
all  His  work  which  He  had  made.  And  God 
blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it,  be- 
cause that  in  it  He  had  rested  from  all  His  work, 
which  God  created  and  made."' — Gen.  ii.  1-3. 
Here  is  a  Sabbath  even  before  the  entrance  of 
sin,  founded  upon  reasons  that  apply  to  all  na- 
tions and  to  all  times.  Is  God's  resting  on  the 
seventh  day,  a  reason  for  tlie  Sabbath  applicable 
to  the  Jevv'S  only  ?  Is  not  this  a  Sabbath  for  all 
the  human  race  ?  Is  there  anything  of  a  local  or 
temporary  nature  in  this  language  ?  Is  not  the 
reason  assigned  for  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath, 
as  forcible  this  day  as  the  day  it  was  given  ?  Is  it 
not  as  applicable  to  us  as  to  the  Jews,  or  to  Adam 
himself?  Is  the  finishing  of  the  work  of  creation 
no  longer  worthy  of  remembrance  ?  Granting  then 
in   the   fullest   sense,   that   the   law   of  Moses   is 


256  THE   SABBATH. 

abolished,  liow  does  that  aftect  this  subject  ?  Shall 
the  abolition  of  the  law  which  was  not  given  for 
two  thousand  years  after  the  institution  of  the  Sab- 
bath, abolish  an  institution  which,  though  incor- 
porated in  that  covenant,  k  totally  independent 
of  it? 

Tlie  Sabbath  is  not  a  Jewish  institution,  for 
though  it  formed  a  part  of  the  national  covenant, 
it  was  previously  incuml)ent  on  all  mankind  in 
virtue  of  its  original  appointment.  As  the  Sab- 
bath was  mcorporated  into  the  Jewish  law,  it  re- 
ceived appendages  applicable  to  the  Jews  alone. 
These  appendages  perished  with  the  law,  but  the 
Sabbath  itself  no  more  dies  by  being  connected 
with  the  law,  than  the  soul  does  by  being  united 
with  the  body.  Suppose  a  landlord  to  give  leases 
in  which  it  is  covenanted  that  his  tenants  are  sub- 
ject to  forfeiture  upon  conviction  of  any  act  of 
treason,  their  loyalty  is  then  one  of  the  conditions 
on  which  they  hold  their  farms.  In  addition  to 
the  fear  of  the  civil  powers,  they  are  deterred  from 
treason  by  the  dread  of  losing  their  property. 
Suppose  again,  that  on  the  expiration  of  these 
leases,  the  landlord  makes  no  such  covenant,  but 
leaves  them  with  respect  to  their  title  to  their 
farms,  at  full  liberty  either  to  be  loyal  or  disloyal. 
Is  it  not  evident  that  though  free  from  their  cove- 
nant and  its  additional  enactions,  they  are  still 
bound  by  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  that  thoue^h  thev 


THE    SABEATIT.  25? 

shall  not  now  on  account  of  treason  forfeit  their 
lands,  yet  they  shall  still  be  answerable  for  their 
crimes  to  its  laws.  In  like  manner,  the  Sabbath 
which  was  an  institution  for  the  human  race,  was 
embodied  in  a  temporal  covenant  with  a  particular 
nation.  With  the  abolition  of  that  covenant,  the 
temporal  sanctions  of  the  Sabbath  were  abolished, 
and  everything  in  it  that  peculiarly  respected  that 
nation,  but  the  Sabbath  itself,  could  not  perish  with 
a  covenant  of  which  it  was  independent. 

But  I  shall  go  farther.  To  overturn  the  Sab- 
bath, it  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  merely  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  law,  no,  nor  even  the  insufficiency  of 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  sanctification  of  tlie 
first  day  of  the  week.  I  maintain  that,  even  though 
the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection  should  be  degraded, 
the  Sabbath  remains  in  virtue  of  its  original  insti- 
tution. There  is  no  proof,  it  is  said,  that  the  day 
of  Christ's  resurrection  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath ; 
grant  this,  and  what  follows  ?  Is  it  that  there  is  no 
Sabbath  ?  l^o  verily,  but  that  instead  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  the  seventh  according  to  the 
original  appointment  is  the  Sabbath.  Christ  tells 
me  that  he  is  Lord  of  the  'Sabbath,  and  the  I^ew 
Testament  aftbrds  me  evidence  that  it  is  changed  ; 
but  had  I  no  such  evidence  of  a  change,  the  seventh 
would  still  command  my  respect.  The  reasons 
upon  which  God  rests  the  appointment  of  the  Sab- 
bath, are  as  lasting  as  the  hilis ;  while  the  creation 


258  TIEE   SABBATH. 

remains  they  cannot  wax  old.  Every  nation  under 
heaven  is  equally  bound  to  respect  tlie  day  that 
God  sanctified  and  blessed.  If  the  nations  have 
lost  the  knowledge  of  the  original  Sabbath,  they 
have  m  like  manner  lost  the  knowledge  of  many 
other  things.  But  as  soon  as  they  receive  the 
Scrij)tures  which  contain  this  institution,  their  ne- 
glect of  it  will  be  their  condemnation.  God  sancti- 
fied and  blessed  a  Sabbath  for  the  hmnan  race, 
even  in  a  state  of  innocence,  for  the  commemora- 
tion of  the  finishing  of  His  works.  Shall  tlie  aboli- 
tion of  a  covenant  that  resj)ected  only  one  nation, 
abolish  that  Sabbath  ?  Will  any  man  presume  to 
class  the  original  Sabbath  appointed  for  man  in 
innocence,  with  these  beggarly  elements,  these 
rudiments  of  the  world,  which  were  to  vanish  as 
shadows  at  the  coming  of  Christ  ? ,  I  conclude  then, 
that  if  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  not  to  be  ob- 
served as  a  Sabbath,  the  seventh  day  still  enjoys 
that  honor.  It  was  appointed  for  the  human  race, 
and  not  for  a  particular  nation :  it  was  appointed 
for  man  in  innocence,  and  not  merely  as  a  shadow 
having  reference  to  human  guilt ;  it  was  founded 
on  reasons  applicable  to  all  ages  and  countries. 
]^o  artillery  employed  against  the  law  of  Moses, 
can  ever  be  brought  to  bear  upon  it.  It  stands  as 
fij-m  as  the  throne  of  God. 

Again,  the  Sabbath  is  one  of  those  command- 
ments which  in  general  are  recognized  by  our  Lord 


THE  SABBATH.  259 

and  his  Apostles,  a.nd  are  exhibited  in  tlio  Kew 
Testament  as  living  after  the  death  of  the  law. 
There  is  nothing  that  can  be  said  from  the  abolition 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  that  deters  me  from  using  this 
argument.  While  I  admit  in  the  fullest  manner 
that  this  law  is  abolished,  I  contend  that  every- 
thing in  that  law  that  was  obligatory  on  all  men, 
and  on  the  Jews  previous  to  their  national  cove- 
nant, remains  unaffected  bv  the  death  of  the  law. 
I  shall  not  enter  into  that  question  at  present ;  but, 
as  a  foundation  for  the  present  argument,  shall 
merely  observe,  that  though  the  usual  distinctions 
of  the  law  are  both  unscriptural  and  pernicious, 
the  commandments  which  men  have  termed  the 
moral  law,  are  sanctioned  by  the  Xew  Testament. 
To  the  ruler  who  asked  what  he  should  do  to  in- 
herit eternal  life,  our  Lord  replied,  "  Thou  knowest 
the  commandments,  Do  not  commit  adultery,"  &q. 
It  is  no  matter  in  wliat  view  it  is  supposed  that 
our  Lord  uttered  these  words.  Wliatevcr  was  his 
view,  he  admits  that  the  keeping  of  the  command- 
ments would  gain  eternal  life.  They  are  the  sub- 
stance of  human  duty.  Did  ever  our  Lord  speak 
so  of  any  of  the  temporary  precepts  of  the  hiw  of 
Moses  ?  Could  it  be  said  that  by  observing  any  of 
these  rites  that  are  really  abolished,  a  man  might 
have  eternal  life  ?  Besides,  is  it  not  evident  that 
our  Lord  understood  these  commandments  in  all 
the  extent  in  which  some  of  tliem   are  explained 


260  THE   SABBATH. 

by  him  in  the  Mth  cliaptei*  of  the  Gospel  by  Mat- 
thew ?  Ill  tlie  sense  in  wliicli  tliey  stood  in  the 
national  covenant — by  keeping  of  which  they  had 
a  right  to  a  happy  life  in  Canaan — they  were  kept ; 
but  this  did  not  entitle  to  eternal  life.  \Yhatever 
precepts  are  made,  the  conditions  of  eternal  life 
must  contain  the  substance  of  all  the  duties  that 
God  requires  of  man.  Is  it  not  most  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  commandments,  to  the  obedience 
of  which  our  Lord  attaches  eternal  life,  are  abo- 
lished by  his  coming  ?  Instead  of  abolishing  them, 
he  recognizes  and  explains  them.  Is  it  not  most 
absurd  to  suppose  that  these  commandments,  to 
which  onr  Lord  pays  such  deference,  should  share 
the  same  fate  with  the  carnal  Jewish  rites  ?  Here, 
then,  the  commandments  in  general,  are  recognized. 
The  fourth,  indeed,  is  not  named.  Keitlier  are 
several  others.  But  when  they  are  generally 
referred  to  as  a  whole,  and  a  sample  given,  those 
not  named  arc  equally  sanctioned.  Lideed,  if  only 
one  precept  of  the  decalogue  is  continued  in  force 
in  the  dispensation  of  Christ,  it  will  show  that  the 
abolition  of  the  law  does  not  necessarily  destroy 
any  of  them.  If  one  survives,  all  may  survive. 
If  any  perish,  it  is  not  by  being  involved  in  tlie 
general  ruin  of  the  law,  but  by  individual  repro- 
bation. Iso  one  will  say  but  that  the  Sabbath 
might  have  been  totally  abolished ;  but  to  do  this, 
more  would  h.ave  been  necessarv  than  the  abolition 


THE   SABSAiH.  2t)l 

of  the  law  ;  for  its  existence  did  not  depend  on  the 
law.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  hath  been  abolished, 
and  the  original  Sabbath  hath  been  chano^ed,  for 
the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 

These  commandments  are,  in  like  manner,  sanc- 
tioned by  all  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  Paul. — 
Eom.  xiii.  8 — •10.  We  are  nrged  to  love  one  an- 
other, because  "  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law." 
He  then  enumerates  some  of  the  commandments, 
and  shows  that  they  are  briefly  comprehended  in 
love.  But  if  these  commandments  had  been  abo- 
lished, they  would  not  have  been  spoken  of  as  a 
fulfilling  after  the  death  of  Christ.  Nothing  can 
be  more  palpably  obvious  than  that  the  command- 
ments are  here  generally  considered  as  obligatory. 
The  Sabbath,  then,  which  is  one  of  these  command- 
ments, is  obligatory,  as  far  as  it  is  unchanged  by 
Christ. 

Xot  only  are  the  commandments  generally  re- 
cognized by  the  'New  Testament,  but  the  fourth 
commandment  is  itself  both  recognized  and  ex- 
plained by  the  Lord.  There  is  no  other  command- 
ment more  fully  illustrated  by  him.  He  explains 
its  nature,  shows  \^'hat  may  be  lawfully  done  on  it, 
and  clears  it  from  all  the  rubbish  heaped  on  it  by 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  If  he  does  not  enforce 
it  with  greater  strictness,  as  he  does  some  other  of 
the  commandments,  it  was  because  these  religion- 
ists wx're  over  rigorous  in  the  observance  of  it. 


262  THE    SABEATil. 

By  showing  the  natiu'e  of  the  thnigs  that  might  be 
done  he  teaches  that  things  of  another  nature  ought 
not  to  be  done.  Will  it  be  said  that  all  this  was 
intended  for  the  Jewish  Sal^bath,  which  was  imme- 
diately to  cease  ?  Then,  it  may  as  plausibly  be 
said,  that  Avhat  he  said  of  the  sixth  commandment, 
and  of  the  seventh,  had  a  reference  only  to  the 
duration  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  that  after  its 
abolition,  murder  and  adultery  are  no  crimes ;  at 
least,  that  what  our  Lord  says  against  them  does 
not  apply  mider  the  present  dispensation.  Our 
Lord  says,  ""Whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust 
after  her  commit teth  adultery  with  her  in  his 
heart."  Shall  it  be  rej)lied,  "  Truth  ;  this  is  adul- 
tery, and  sinful  as  long  as  the  law  lasts ;  but,  as 
the  law  is  abolished,  adidtery  is  not  now  a  crime." 
On  the  contrary,  do  not  all  understand  this  to  be 
the  Lord's  explanation  of  that  sin,  importing  its 
criminality  under  the  new  dispensation  ?  And,  if 
this  be  the  case  with  resj^ect  to  one  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, why  is  it  not  so  with  respect  to  the 
fourth  ?  Why  do  we  not  grant  our  Lord's  recog- 
nition of  that  commandment  to  have  the  same 
weight  as  his  recognition  of  the  seventh  ?  If  the 
latter  was  duty,  independent  of  the  law,  so  was  the 
former.  Besides,  can  it  be  supposed  that  our  Lord 
would  have  been  at  such  pains  in  explaining  a  pre- 
cept that  was  to  die  with  himself?  How  many 
encounters  has  he  with  the  Pharisees  on  this  sub- 


THE    SABBATH.  263 

ject  ?  Instead  of  avoiding  giving  tliem  offence,  he 
Beems  intentionally  to  lieal  often  on  the  Sabbath, 
when  he  might  have  easily  omitted  it  till  the  next 
day.  We  cannot  su^^pose  that  Christ  was  influ- 
enced by  that  vanity  which  sometimes  actuates 
people  in  ostentatiously  displaying  their  liberty, 
glorying  in  their  superiority  to  vulgar  prejudices. 
He  was  lowly  in  heart.  I  rather  suppose  that  his 
design  in  this  part  of  his  conduct  was,  to  take  an 
opportunity  of  showing  the  true  nature  of  the  Sab- 
bath, for  instruction  to  his  disciples  throughout  all 
ages.  It  strikes  me  that  it  is  not  likely  that  he 
would  have  been  so  solicitous  to  quarrel  with  them 
on  this  question,  if  the  Sabbath  itself  was  a  merely 
temporary  Jewish  institution,  tottering  to  its  fall. 

This  is  not  all  that  may  'be  drawn  from  our 
Lord's  explanation  of  the  Sabbath.  Some  of  the 
arguments  used  against  the  Pharisees  evidently 
import,  that  the  Sabbath  is  no  temporary  institu- 
tion. "The  Sabbath,"  saith  he,  "was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  Here  two 
points  are  fixed,  namely,  that  the  Sabbath  is  a  uni- 
versal institution,  and  that  it  was  designed  for  the 
advantage  of  man.  He  speaks  of  it  not  as  a  Jew- 
ish institution,  but  refers  to  its  original  aj)point- 
ment  for  man.  The  Sabbath  was  not  made  at  the 
giving  of  the  law ;  it  was  made  immediately  after 
the  creation  of  the  world.  But  when  it  was  made, 
it  is  here  asserted  that  it  was  made  for  man.    It  is. 


264  THE  SABBATH. 

therefore,  for  the  human  race,  and  not  for  the 
Jews,  it  was  made.  Why  then  should  man  be 
foosed  from  the  Sabbath,  when  the  Jews  were 
foosed  from  the  law  to  which  as  a  nation  they 
were  married  ?  If  it  was  made  for  man,  it  must 
be  obligatory  on  man,  indej)endent  of  the  Jewish 
covenant  altogether,  until  it  is  either  changed  or 
individually  abrogated.  Can  the  abolition  of  a 
temporary,  national  covenant,  abolish  a  Sabbath 
made  for  the  human  race — made  even  before  the 
entrance  of  sin?  Shall  a  paradisiacal  institution 
be  classed  with  these  carnal  ordinances,  those  rudi- 
ments of  the  world,  those  beggarly  elements  of 
which  all  that  was  pecidiar  to  the  Jews  in  their 
national  covenant  consisted,  and  which  the  New 
Testament  represents  as  done  away  ? 

The  phrase  referred  to  imports,  also,  that  the 
Sabbath  was  made  for  the  benefit  of  man,  not  as 
his  burthen.  It  was,  therefore,  for  the  advantage 
even  of  Adam,  in  a  state  of  perfect  innocence,  to 
have  a  day  set  apart  as  a  Sabbath.  Xow,  is  it  not 
absurd,  even  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  absurdity,  to 
suppose  that  a  Sabbath  was  of  advantage  to  imio- 
cent  Adam,  and  that  it  is  not  of  use  to  the  children 
of  God  in  their  state  of  imperfection  ?  ShaU  a  Sab- 
bath be  useful  amidst  the  innocence  of  Eden,  and 
shall  it  be  useless  amidst  the  temptations  of  the 
devil,  the  world,  and  the  fiesh?  How  can  any 
man  sav  that  he  has  no  need  of  a  Sabbath  that  was 


/ 

THE    SABBATH.  '^^^ 


useful  to  Adam  before  liis  tail?  But  if  a  Sabbath 
is  useful,  the  Sabbath  cannot  be  abolished.  I  hold 
it  to  be  as  clear  as  the  light  of  heaven,  that  if  the 
Sabbath  was  useful  when  it  was  made,  it  is  much 
more  needful  now. 

To  the  Jews  who  sought  to  slay  Jesus  for  per- 
forming cures  on  the  Sabbath,  he  replies :  "  My 
Father'' hitherto  worketh,  and  I  work."— John  v. 
IT.  Here  the  ground  of  our  Lord's  defence  is  the 
example  of  his  Father.  This  shows  that  Jesus 
does  not  consider  the  Sabbath  a  merely  Jewish 
institution  ;  but,  that  he  views  it  as  that  first  Sab- 
bath sanctified  and  blessed  by  God,  aftei-  the  crea- 
tion. As  a  merely  Jewish  institution,  the  Father's 
working  on  that  day  would  have  been  no  justifica- 
tion of  himself  for  like  conduct.  Jesus  was  made 
under  the  law ;  but  was  the  Father  bound  to  keep 
anv  institution  he  gave  the  Jews  ?  It  was  the  duty 
of  the  Jews  to  keep  the  holy  days ;  but  God  might 
have  made  a  new  world  on  these  days,  or,  which 
is  the  same  thing,  He  might  have  permitted,  and 
He  did  permit,  all  other  nations  not  to  respect  these 
holy  days.  But  He  would  not  do  so  with  that  day 
which  He  blessed,  and  sanctified,  and  honored  by 
His  own  example.  Though  the  Lord  of  heaven  is 
not  bound  to  law,  yet  He  honored  and  sanctified  the 
Sabbath,  and  observed  it  Himself  by  resting  from 
His  works.  Our  Lord's  argument  takes  it  for 
granted,  that  the  Father  Himself  still  respected  the 


266  TIIE   SABBATH. 

Sabbatli ;  for  in  any  other  view  it  is  irrelevant. 
If  God  did  not  respect  the  Sabbath  at  all,  why  is 
anything  that  He  does  on  that  day  referred  to  as  a 
justification  of  the  conduct  of  one  who  is  bound  to 
keep  that  day.  The  Lord  might  command  men  to 
keep  a  day  that  He  does  not  keep  Himself.  It  was 
no  justification  of  Jesus  to  allege  that  the  Father 
did  similar  things  to  those  he  did  on  the  Sabbath, 
except  it  is  true  that  the  Father  respects  the  Sab- 
bath. But  this  argument  has  full  force  when  taken 
in  comiection  with  the  Lord  sanctifying  the  Sab- 
bath, and  sanctioning  it  eyen  by  His  own  examj^le. 
If,  then,  the  Father  Himself  respects  the  Sabbath 
by  His  o^yn  example,  whatever  He  does  on  the  Sab- 
bath might  be  done  by  Jesus,  though  he  was  bound 
to  keep  the  Sabbath.  God  is  working  every  day 
in  providence ;  and  on  the  very  first  Sabbath  on 
which  it  is  said  He  rested.  He  was  working  in  some 
respects.  He  rested  from  creation ;  but  He  was 
still  working  in  providence.  What  conducted  the 
heavenly  bodies  in  their  revolutions  ?  What  made 
all  things  to  proceed  on  that  day  as  on  others? 
The  hand  of  the  Lord  alone.  If  the  Lord  would 
cease  to  work,  the  revolutions  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  would  cease,  the  productions  of  the  earth 
should  not  advance  in  growth,  and  animals  should 
not  come  into  the  world  on  that  day.  Our  Lord's 
desioii  in  this  aro-ument  is  to  show  the  Jews  that 
though  God  Himself  respects  the  Sabbath,  there 


TIIE   SABBATH.  267 

are  some  things  He  does  on  that  day.  Like  things, 
then,  might  be  done  by  him,  even  when  under 
obligations  to  keep  the  Sabbath  ;  for  nothing  could 
be  essentially  a  breach  of  that  day  which  was  sanc- 
tioned by  something  similar  in  the  conduct  of  the 
heavenly  Father,  who  Himself  respected  that  day. 
This  argument,  then,  takes  it  for  granted  that  the 
Sabbath  is  not  merely  a  Jewish  institution,  and 
that  it  was  not  only  respected  by  God  when  He 
made  it,  but  that  it  was  still  respected  by  Him. 
If  he  had  not  still  a  respect  to  it,  his  conduct  on 
that  day  would  be  no  example  to  those  bound  to 
observe  it.  How  honorable,  then,  is  the  Sabbath ! 
It  v^-as  not  only  made  for  man  in  a  state  of  inno- 
cence, but  it  was  honored  by  the  observance  of 
God  Himself,  who  is  not  bound  to  law  at  all,  and  is 
still  respected  by  Him.  "With  respect  to  the  first, 
marriage  is  on  a  level  with  it ;  but  with  respect  to 
the  latter,  it  is  unrivalled  among  all  the  divine 
institutions.  Shall  it,  then,  be  supposed  that  such 
an  ordinance  should  perish  with  the  national  cove- 
nant of  the  Jews  ? 

Having  proved  that  the  original  Sabbath  could 
not  be  abolished  with  the  law  of  carnal  command- 
ments, let  us  next  see  if  there  is  any  evidence  that 
the  day  of  its  observance  is  changed.  We  may 
observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  our  Lord  prepares 
us  for  a  change,  when — after  a  copious  enumera- 
tic^n  of  arguments,  showing  its  nature — he  asserts 


268  THE    SABBATH. 

that  he  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath.  This  implies  his 
absolute  authority  over  it ;  and  not  obscui'elj  hints 
that  he  designed  to  make  some  alterations  with 
respect  to  it.  But  that  he  did  not  intend  to  use 
his  Lordship  over  it,  for  the  j)urpose  of  entirely 
destroying  it,  we  are  assm-ed  by  what  he  previously 
declares — "  The  Sabbath  was  not  made  for  man." 

That  the  day  of  its  observance  was  actually 
changed,  and  that  the  fii'st  day  of  the  week  is  now 
entitled  to  that  honor,  is  clearly  intimated  by  the 
meeting  of  the  chmxhes  on  that  day,  and  the 
marked  respect  that  our  Lord  paid  to  it.  On  the 
mere  ckcumstance  of  his  appearing  to  his  disciples 
on  the  evening  of  the  first  day  of  his  resm*rection 
I  would  build  nothmg,  taken  independently ;  but 
even  that  aj^pearance  seems  to  be  related  in  a 
marked  manner  by  John:  "Then  the  same  day, 
at  evening,  leing  the  first  day  of  the  iceeh^  when 
the  doors  were  shut,  where  the  disciples  were 
assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus  and 
stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  mito  them.  Peace  be 
unto  you."  But  comiecting  this  with  his  next 
appearance,  it  is  impossible  not  to  suppose  that 
there  was  a  design  in  marking  the  particular  day. 
"And  after  eight  days,  again  his  disciples  were 
within,  and  Thomas  with  them :  then  came  Jesus, 
the  doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst."  If 
the  disciples  did  not  meet  dm-ing  the  preceding- 
week,  which  is  not  likely,  then  there  must  have 


THE   SABBATH.  269 

abeadj  been  a  command  for  meeting  on  this  par- 
ticnlar  day ;  but  if  tliej  met  through  the  week,  and 
our  Lord  did  not  during  that  time  appear  among 
them,  allowing  the  doubts  of  Thomas  to  remain  all 
that  time,  then  he  surely  designed  to  honor  the 
meeting  on  that  day  more  than  any  other  of  their 
meetings.  Is  there  no  intention  in  mentioning 
with  such  exactness  that  this  appearance  was  on 
their  meeting  eight  days  after  his  first  appearance. 
Iso  doubt  our  Lord  apj^eared  frequently  to  them 
on  all  days  of  the  week ;  but  the  marked  manner 
in  which  his  ai^pearance  among  the  assemblies  of 
his  disciples  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  recorded 
evidently  intimates  design. 

But  this  fact  derives  additional  force  from  con- 
necting it  with  the  meeting  of  the  churches  on  that 
day.  When  we  find  that  the  churches  continued 
to  meet  on  that  day,  we  are  confirmed  in  the  opin- 
ion that  we  have  not  misinterpreted  the  preceding 
intimation.  If  there  is  a  day  in  the  week  to  be 
honored  above  the  rest,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but 
on  that  day  the  Lord  would  appoint  His  churches 
to  meet.  If,  therefore,  I  have  proved  that  there  is 
a  Sabbath  independent  of  the  Jewish  law,  obliga- 
tory for  reasons  apj^licable  to  all  mankind — if  the 
seventh  day  was  neglected  by  the  churches  planted 
by  the  Apostles,  and  the  first  day  apj^ointed  for 
then*  meetings — ^I  consider  the  matter  settled.  If 
the  seventh  day  had  been  continued  in  its  original 


270  THE   SABBATH. 

distinction,  it  is  to  me  clear  as  demonstration,  that 
it  would  liave  been  honored  by  the  meetings  of  the 
churches.  When  that  day  is  not  so  honored,  and 
another  day  obtains  that  distinction,  the  change  is 
proclaimed  in  language  loud  and  clear.  Were  not 
the  weekly  meetings  of  the  Jews  on  the  day  then 
honored  as  the  Sabbath,  and  were  not  their  other 
stated  days  honored  by  meetings  ?  The  day,  there- 
fore, that  has  the  honor  of  the  meetings  of  the 
churches  has  the  honor  of  the  Sabbath. 

Had  there  been  no  intention  to  respect  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  there  is  no  reason  to  supj^ose  that 
the  Lord  would  have  fixed  any  particular  day 
for  all  the  churches  in  all  the  difierent  countries  of 
the  world.  Why  did  he  not  leave  the  day  of  meet- 
ing as  open  as  the  hour  of  the  day  at  wliich  they 
meet  ?  Since  he  has  not  done  so,  but  fixed  down 
all  nations  and  ages  to  meet  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  he  must  have  desio-ned  to  honor  that  dav. 
Some  admit  that  the  churches  ought  to  meet  on 
that  day,  but  contend  that  the  day  is  not  to  be 
respected.  But  it  strikes  me  that  the  only  reason 
for  fixing  a  particular  day  must  have  been  to  honor 
that  day. 

But  the  argument  has  irresistible  weight  wlieii 
considered  with  reference  to  Judea.  Li  that  coun- 
try the  disciples  would  not  be  permitted  to  follow 
their  civil  employments  on  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week.    Kow,  is  it  at  all  supposable,  that  the  Lord 


THE    SAJ3BATH.  271 

would  oblige  tlie  churclies  in  Juclea  to  meet  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  when  they  must  he  unem- 
ployed on  the  precedmg  day,  except  it  was  to 
honor  the  day  of  meetmg  ?  "Would  not  this  have 
been  a  useless  burden  ? 

Further,  if  no  respect  is  designed  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  why  are  the  meetings  weekly  ?  Why 
are  they  not  every  fourth  day,  every  fifth  day, 
every  sixth  day,  every  tenth  day  ?  If  all  regard 
to  that  primitive  division  of  time  be  done  away 
with,  why  is  it  still  pressed  upon  our  view  by 
weekly  meetings  ?  If  the  frequency  of  meeting 
was  not  left  to  ourselves,  why  did  we  not  get  the 
French  decade  ?  Does  not  the  establishment  of  a 
weekly  meeting  recognize  the  23rimitive  division  of 
time,  and  the  utility  of  one  day  in  the  week  being 
taken  from  civil  employments  ?  In  giving  weight 
to  the  argument  from  the  meeting  of  the  first 
churches,  various  circumstances  concur  with  the 
simple  fact,  why  were  the  meetings  weekly?  If 
weekly,  why  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  espe- 
cially in  Judea  ?  Let  it  be  remembered,  also,  that 
it  is  not  merely  the  meeting  on  that  day  that 
proves  the  day  holy,  although  nothing  but  respect 
for  that  day  can  be  assigned  as  pointing  it  out  for 
that  purpose.  The  meeting  of  the  churches  on 
that  day,  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  Sabbath  independent  of  the  Jewish  law, 
forms  an  ar2;ument  in  my  mind  not  to  be  resisted. 


272  THE   S^iEBATH. 

From  the  resurrection  of  Christ  some  reason  in 
favor  of  the  sanctiiication  of  the  first  clay  of  the 
week  as  an  independent  argument.  From  the 
importance  of  the  event,  they  deduce  a  Christian 
Sabbath.  But  this  is  a  foundation  upon  which  no 
well  taught  Christian  can  hold  any  truth.  Tliis 
basis  would  bear  the  whole  fabric  of  superstition 
and  will-worship.  If  an  ordinance  can  be  deduced 
from  our  own  views  of  the  importance  of  any  event, 
there  will  be  no  end  to  ordinances.  But  though 
this  is  irrelevant  as  an  independent  argument,  it 
has  much  weight  when  coupled  with  the  evidence 
of  the  sanctification  of  the  day  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion. It  is  like  a  cypher  in  figures — ^i)laced  on  tlie 
left  hand  it  is  nothing;  on  the  right,  it  lias  the 
power  of  increasiBg  the  force  of  the  figures  that 
precede  it.  All  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  sanc- 
tification of  the  first  day  of  the  week  will  receive 
an  additional  for.ce  from  the  coijsideration  of  the 
imjDort  of  that  illustrious  fact — the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  that  day.  On  that  day 
he  ceased  from  the  mightiest  of  Almighty  works. 
If  the  finishing  of  creation  was  worthy  of  a  day  of 
commemoration,  why  will  we  resist  the  evidence 
of  a  day  for  commemorating,  the  finishing  of  the 
more  glorious  work  of  redemption  ? 

xS^or  does  the  day  appear  to  have  been  overlooked 
by  the  pro]3hets.  It  seems  evidently  anticipated  in 
the  118th  Psalm.      Speaking  of  the  triumph  of 


THE    SAEBATH.  273 

J  esus,  tlie  Psalmist  exclaims,  "  this  is  the  day  the 
Lord  hath  made ;  we  will  be  glad  and  rejoice  in 
it."  The  time  he  refers  to  is  when  the  stone  rejected 
bv  the  builders  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner — ■ 
when  this  day  of  the  Lord  appeared  wonderful  in  the 
e^^es  of  His  peoj^le.  But  was  not  this  when  Jesus 
was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  by 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead  ?  Why,  otherwise, 
does  he  couple  a  certain  day  with  the  celebration 
of  that  glorious  triumph  ? 

But  the  nature  of  the  evidence  of  the  passage 
usually  quoted  on  this  subject  from  the  book  of 
Hevelation,  is  such  as  "cannot  ever  be  evaded.  This 
is  calculated,  not  only  to  satisfy  the  candid  inquirer, 
but  to  stop  the  mouth  of  evasion  itself.  "  I  was  in 
the  sj^irit,"  says  John,  "on  the  Lord's  day."  If 
after  reading  this,  any  one  should  venture  to  assert, 
that  there  is,  under  the  new  dispensation,  no  day  to 
be  regarded  above  another,  I  should  not  feel  myself 
bound  to  reason  with  him,  as  one  who  did  not 
perceive  evidence,  but  as  one  who  resisted  evidence. 
If  any  thing  can  be  established  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, this  passage  proves,  incontestably,  that  the 
first  churches  had  a  Lord's  day.  Why,  then,  have 
they  supposed  that  any  view  that  can  possibly  be 
taken  of  the  law  of  Moses,  should  sap  the  founda- 
tions of  this  edifying  ordinance?  Long  after  the 
abrogation  of  the  Jewish  law,  John  shows  us  that 
he  had  a  Lord's  day ;  and  from  the  manuer  in  which 


274  THE    S^^BATH. 

lie  refers  to  it,  it  is  evident  that  none  of  those  to 
whom  he  wrote  were  ignorant  of  the  particular  to 
which  he  allrided.  It  might  as  well  be  supposed, 
that  when  we  date  onr  letters  by  the  day  of  the 
week,  the  person  to  whom  they  are  addressed  should 
not  understand  what  particular  day  we  mean. 
There  was,  then,  at  that  time,  a  Lord's  day,  univer- 
sally known  and  aclmowledged  among  Christians. 

Will  any  one  novr  object  that  they  cannot  find 
out  what  day  of  the  week  is  this  Lord's  day  ?  Grant 
the  objection  to  be  well  founded,  and  what  follows? 
It  follows  that  the  Scriptures  are  an  imj^erfect  rule ; 
that  they  set  apart  a  particular  day,  without  giving 
us  any  information  with  respect  to  what  day  they 
mean.  Let  persons  who  entertain  this  view,  burn 
their  Bible,  for  surely  it  is  not  the  book  of  God. 
Can  any  thing  be  more  absurd  and  even  blasphe- 
mous ?  The  ^ew  Testament  informs  us  that  there 
is  a  Lord's  day,  but  gives  us  •  no  hints  from  which 
we  may  discover  that  day ! 

But  even  this  scepticism  will  not  free  them  from 
a  Sabbath.  If  the  first  day  of  the  week  has  not 
received  that  honor,  the  seventh,  appointed  at  first, 
must  stiU  retain  it. 

But  after  observing  the  honor  put  upon  the  day 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  can  any  candid 
mind  doubt  of  the  day  called  the  Lord's  day?  Look 
at  the  chm'ches  in  aU  parts  of  the  world,  meeting 
from  the  beginning  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 


TllE    SABBATn.  275 

and  not  on  the  seventh ;  and  after  this  try  to  donbt 
any  more.  The  passage  in  the  book  of  Revelation 
establishes  a  Lord's  day,  and  these  other  passages 
clearly  fix  the  particular  day  so  called. 

Even  this  passage  itself  affords  no  trifling  evi- 
dence that  the  day  referred  to  is  the  notable  day 
of  Christ's  resurrection.  What  day  is  so  likely  to 
be  the  Lord's  as  the  day  of  his  triumph  ?  The  most 
remarkable  day  ever  the  world  savr.  Besides,  it  is 
evident  that  John  marks  this  day  as  honored  by 
the  Lord,  in  giving  these  important  discoveries  of 
his  will  with  respect  to  things,  till  the  second 
coming.  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit,"  says  John,  "  on  the 
Lord's  day."  The  Lord  then  honored  his  own  day 
in  this  way.  Is'ow  compare  this  with  the  accounts 
in  vvdiich  we  see  him  honoring  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  and  we  will  have  a  sufiicient  criterion  by 
which  we  may  distinguish  the  day  that  is  here 
called  the  Lord's — the  day  that  these  other  pas- 
sages mark  as  being  honored  as  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  The  day  here  honored  is  called  the  Lord's 
day.  May  Vv^e  not  then  conclude  that  they  are  the 
same  day — that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  the 
Lord's  day ;  or  that  the  Lord's  day  is  the  first  day 
of  the  week  ? 

It  has  been  said  that  this  book  is  figurative,  and 
that  this  appellation  is  figurative  also.  I  would 
not  wish  to  hear  any  Christian  making  use  of  such 
an  objection.     It  argues  so  much  perversion  of 


276  TIIE    SAEBATH. 

miiid,  60  much  obstinacy  of  unbelief,  that  it  would 
be  difficult  for  me  to  suppose  that  it  satisfied  the 
conscience  of  him  who  should  use  it.  This  book  is 
indeed,  in  its  general  character,  figurative;  but 
eveiy  thing  in  it  is  not  figurative.  If  the  appella- 
tion. Lord's  daj,  marking  the  time  of  receiving  the 
revelation,  be  not  plain  language,  there  is  no 
dependence  to  be  put  upon  language  at  all.  As 
w^ell  may  it  be  said,  that  the  Apostle's  banishment 
was  figurative,  that  Patmos  is  figurative,  that  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  Chi'ist  is  figurative,  and  that 
the  name  Jesus  itself  is  figurative.  There  are  no 
bounds  to  absurdity,  when  obstinacy  will  think 
itself  justifiable  in  availing  itself  of  any  thing  that 
an  ungoverned  imagination  can  suggest.  Instead 
of  plying  such  an  objector  with  arguments,  I  should 
judge  the  most  wholesome  discipline  for  him  would 
be  to  warn  him  against  the  perverse  disputings  of 
men  of  corrupt  minds. 

Among  the  various  ways  by  wliich  Satan  has 
attempted  to  rob  us  of  this  precious  ordinance  he 
has  suggested  that  if  the  respecting  the  Lord's  day 
so  far  as  to  meet,  cannot  be  denied,  no  more  of  it 
ought  to  be  sanctified  than  what  is  employed  in  the 
meetings.  But  if  Satan  quotes  Scripture,  Scripture 
can  be  retorted  on  Satan  to  his  confusion.  It  is  the 
Lord's  day;  if  so,  the  whole  of  the  day  is  his. 
How  it  is  to  be  employed  privately,  is  to  be  learned 
from  our  Lord's  lessons  on  the  nature  of  the  Sab- 


THE   y^UilJATII.  277 

bath.  There  is  no  doubt,  that  if  some  have  erred 
by  rejecting  the  observance  of  this  day,  there  are 
others  who  have  erred  by  insisting  on  pharisaical 
strictness.  Many  Christians  would  certainly  have 
taken  part  with  the  Pharisees  in  their  charges 
against  Jesus  for  breaking  the  Sabbath.  They 
hold  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  ^  it  a  yoke  and  a 
bondage,  not  a  privilege  and  a  blessing.  Such 
persons  ought  to  study  the  reasons  by  which  our 
Lord  justifies  his  conduct  to  the  Scribes  and  Phar- 
isees on  this  subject.  They  will  find  that  no  work 
of  love  to  the  human  race  is  improper  on  this  day ; 
and  that  every  thing  belonging  to  a  church,  how- 
ever much  it  may  lead  into  temporal  matters,  ought 
to  be  attended  to  on  it.  If  the  priests  in  the  temple 
service  did  the  work  of  the  shambles,  and  were 
blameless,  nothing  that  concerns  a  church  of  Christ 
can  profane  the  day  which  he  claims  as  his  own. 
The  view  in  which  many  keep  the  Lord's  day  con- 
demns Jesus  Christ  as  a  Sabbath  breaker. 

Some  take  ofifence  at  the  name  Sabbath,  as 
applied  to  the  Lord's  day.  There  is  no  doubt  but 
the  names.  Lord's  daj^,  and  first  day  of  the  week, 
are  those  by  which  alone  it  is  designated  in  the 
'New  Testament ;  but  it  appears  to  me  that  this  fas- 
tideousness  is  too  nice.  Sabbath  imports  a  day  of 
rest ;  such  a  day  is  the  Lord's  day ;  and  if  it  agrees 
to  the  idea  imported  m  the  name,  why  refuse  it  the 
name  ?     Besides,  it  appears  to  me  evident  that  th^ 


278  THE    SzVBBATH. 

Lord's  day  includes  tlie  commemoration  both  of 
the  finishing  of  creation,  and  of  redemption.  The 
original  Sabbath  was  never  abolished,  therefore 
must  still  exist.  It  can  be  found  no  where  but  in 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  It  is  asked,  if  the  Lord's 
dav  is  a  Sabbath,  why  not  so  called  ?  For  a  very 
sufficient  reason.  Another  day  had  already  en- 
grossed that  name,  and  therefore,  although  it  de- 
served that  name  ever  so  well,  the  irreversable 
foundations  of  the  laws  of  language  would  not  per- 
mit it  to  be  given.  In  the  age  in  which  the  Kew 
Testament  was  written,  the  Sabbath  always  referred 
to  the  seventh  day.  They  discover  more  precipi- 
tancy than  deep  research,  vrho  deny  this  name  as 
applicable  to  the  Lord's  day.  Some  people  arrive 
at  the  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  as  Gil  Bias 
got  to  the  bottom  of  medicine,  not  by  mature 
study,  but  by  adopting  hastily  a  few  insignia  of 
perfection. 


ON    HUMAN    CERTIFICATES 


EXCELLE]S^GY  OF  THE  SCEIPTUKES. 


CiiEisTiAxs  have  discovered  a  great  2:)ropeDsity 
to  sanction  the  vv^isdom  of  God  by  the  wisdom  of 
men.  The  Scriptures,  on  the  contrary,  oppose 
these;  and,  instead  of  coveting  the  patronage  of 
the  wisdom  of  this  world,  they  cast  upon  it  the 
utmost  contempt.  So  far,  therefore,  as  Christians 
do  otherwise  they  are  carnal  and  walk  as  men. 
That  the  Scriptures  are  suited  to  the  capacities  of  all 
men,  and  that  they  are  the  power  of  God  to  the 
salvation  of  the  learned  and  wise  as  well  as  the 
unlearned  and  unwise  or  illiterate  and  ignorant,  is 
a  truth  that  reflects  glory  on  them ;  yet  that  they 
should  be  so  ao-reeable  to  the  natural  taste  of 
learned  men  as  to  recommend  themselves  to  their 
constant  perusal,  is  neither  agreeable  to  fact  nor  to 
the  natui-e  of  their  contents,  except  these  are  grossly 
perverted   and  njiistaken.    These   reflections   may 


280  COMMENDATION    OF 

frequently  occur  from  tlie  writings  of  Cliristians; 
they  are  at  present  excited  by  some  things  in  the 
article  of  Buck's  Anecdotes,  entitled  the  Scriptures. 
Speaking  of  the  book  of  God,  he  says :  "  It  is  so 
sublime  in  its  language,  so  noble  in  its  doctrine,  yet 
plain  in  its  prece2:)ts,  and  excellent  in  its  end,  that 
the  man  must  be  ignorant  and  depraved  indeed 
who  lives  without  reading  it."  I  acknowledge  that 
there  are  many  specimens  of  sublimity  in  the 
Scriptures,  especially  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  find  parallels  in  any  of  the  writmgs 
of  men ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  there  is  much, 
especially  in  the  language  of  the  Apostles,  that 
camiot  bear  the  test  of  criticism,  according  to  the 
rules  of  human  eloquence.  I  am  convinced  that 
the  rhetorical  excellencies  of  many  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture would  recommend  them  to  the  admiration  of 
the  learned,  were  they  to  be  fomid  on  any  other 
subject,  but  fact  proves  that  there  are  many  who 
live  without  reading  them,  who  camiot  be  called 
ignorant  in  any  other  sense  than  as  referring  to  the 
Gospel.  The  nobility  of  its  doctrines,  instead  of 
being  an  inducement  to  wise  men  to  study  the 
Scriptures,  is  the  very  thing  that  prevents  them 
from  looking  into  the  Bible,  and  would  prevent 
them,  had  it  all  the  elegance  required  by  the  rules 
of  all  the  critics  from  Longinus  to  Doctor  Blair. 
If  any  such  delight  in  reading  the  Scriptures  it  is 
under  some  misconception  of  that  which  is  the 


THE   SCIIIPTUKES.  281 

glory  of  the  Christian ;  and  such  parts  of  them  as 
have  the  least  reference  to  the  fonndation  of  a 
sinner's  hope. 

"  I  walk,"  says  Queen  Elizabeth,  "  many  times  in 
the  pleasant  fields  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  where  I 
pluck  up  the  goodlisorae  herbs  of  sentences  by 
23runing,  eat  them  by  reading,  digest  them  by 
musing,  and  lay  them  up  at  length  in  the  high  seat 
of  memory  by  gathering  them  together;  so  that 
having  tasted  their  sweetness,  I  may  less  perceive 
the  bitterness  of  life."  A  few  words  of  the  ]3re- 
ciousness  of  Jesus  would  have  been  more  convinc- 
ing evidence  that  she  well  understood  and  valued 
the  Bible,  than  all  this  farrago  of  quaint  and 
incongruous  metaphor.  I  cannot  tell  in  what  part 
of  the  sacred  volume  that  celebrated  queen  learned 
to  persecute  the  saints  of  God.  Her  pride,  her 
ambition,  her  haughtiness,  her  cruelty  are  not 
convincing  proofs  that  she  had  di'ank  in  the  spirit 
of  Christ. 

It  would  indeed,  be  pleasing  to  learn,  that  "  the 
book  which  Sir  Isaac  JSTewton  studied  with  the 
greatest  application  was  the  Bible ;  if  it  was  also 
ascertained  that  his  love  to  it  originated  in  the 
behef  of  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  and  of  salvation 
to  the  guiltiest  of  men,  by  faith  in  the  atonement 
of  Christ.  But  if  it  is  true,  that  he  denied  the 
divine  nature  of  the  Son  of  God,  I  class  him  infidel 
as  Thomas  Paine. 


282  COMMENDATION   OF 

I  am  as  little  edified  with  the  certificate  of  Mr. 
Locke,  though  it  appears  plausible.  "Mr.  Locke," 
says  our  author,  '-justly  esteemed  one  of  the  greatest 
masters  of  reason,  being  asked,  a  little  before  his 
dissolution,  '  What  was  the  shortest  and  surest  way 
for  a  young  gentleman  to  attain  a  true  knowledge 
of  the  Christian  religion  m  the  full  and  just  extent 
of  it  V  made  this  memorable  reply :  '  Let  him  study 
the  holy  Scriptures,  especially  the  l!^ew  Testament. 
Therein  are  contained  the  w^ords  of  eternal  life.  It 
has  God  fur  its  Author,  salvation  for  its  end  and 
truth,  without  any  mixture  of  error,  for  its  matter.' 
And  again :  '  The  only  way  to  obtain  a  knowledge 
of  the  Christian  religion  in  its  full  extent  and  purity 
is  the  study  of  the  holy  Scriptures.'"  For  my 
part,  instead  of  considering  these  words  memorable, 
I  look  upon  both  the  question  and  answer  as  pecu- 
liarly silly.  Where  could  a  knowledge  of  Christi- 
anity possibly  be  obtained  but  in  the  Scriptures  ? 
It  might  as  well  be  asked,  how  shall  we  obtain  a 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  ?  'No  real  knowledge, 
more  than  a  just  and  full  knowledge,  of  Chi-istianity 
can  be  obtained  from  any  other  source  than  the 
Scrij)tures.  These  accounts  and  defences  of  Christi- 
anity, independent  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tm-es,  can  serve  the  cause  only  of  Antichrist.  Mr. 
Locke's  words  seem  to  pay  the  highest  compliment 
to  the  Scriptures ;  but  that  they  are  consistent  with 
entu*e  ignorance  of  the  truth  is  clear,  from  the 


THE   SCEH^TUKES.  283 

words  of  tlie  same  autlior,  except  lie  is  inconsistent 
with  himself.  "God,"  says  Mr.  Locke,  "had,  by 
the  light  of  reason,  revealed  to  all  mankind  who 
wonld  make  use  of  tliat  light,  tliat  He  was  good  and 
merciful.  Tlie  same  spark  of  the  divine  nature 
and  knowledge  in  man,  while  making  him  a  man, 
showed  him  also  the  way  of  atoning  the  merciful, 
kind,  compassionate  Author  and  Father  of  him  and 
his  being,  when  he  had  transgressed  that  law.  He 
that  made  use  of  this  candle  of  the  Lord,  so  far  as 
to  find  what  was  his  duty,  could  not  miss  to  find 
also  the  way  to  reconciliation  and  forgiveness  when 
he  had  fiiiled  of  his  duty.  The  law,  (meaning  the 
law  of  nature)  is  the  eternal  immutable  stand^ird 
of  right,  and  a  part  of  that  law  is,  that  a  man  should 
forgive  not  only  his  children,  but  his  enemies,  upon 
their  repentance,  asking  pardon  and  amendment. 
And  therefore  he  could  not  doubt  (see  Leland,  1, 
148)  that  the  Autlior  of  this  law,  and  God  of  pa- 
tience and  consolation,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  would 
forgive  His  frail  offspring,  if  they  acknowledged 
their  faults,  disapproved  the  iniquity  of  their  trans- 
gressions, begged  Llis  pardon,  and  resolved  in  earnest 
for  the  future,  to  conform  their  actions  to  this  rule, 
which  they  owned  to  be  just  and  right;  this  way  of 
reconciliation,  this  hope  of  atonement,  the  light 
of  nature  revealed  to  them."  ]^ow,  how  does  this 
consist  with  the  compliment  he  makes  to  the  Scrip- 
tures?    If  this  is  true,  vdiat   is   the  use   of  the 


284  COiQIEKDATIOX   OF 

Scriptures  ?  If  tlie  light  of  nature  points  out  both 
a  man's  dutj  and  the  way  of  atonement  for  trans- 
gression, what  room  is  there  for  revelation.  If  re- 
pentance, asking  pardon,  &c.,  be  that  atonement, 
what  need  is  there  for  the  atonement  of  Christ? 
Does  not  Mr.  Locke  insinuate  that  God  Himself  is 
bound  by  the  law  of  nature  to  forgive  his  penitent 
enemies  ?  What  blas^^hemy  is  it  to  speak  of  co  spark 
of  the  divhie  ncdure  and  knowledge  in  man?  Does 
not  this  make  man  in  part  a  divine  being  ?  Is  not 
this  the  old  error  taught  by  the  devil,  that  men  are 
"  as  gods,  knowing  good  and  evil  V 

The  testimony  of  Sir  William  Jones  is  just,  so 
far  as  it  goes  ;  but  it  is  not  decisive  of  his  having 
discovered  the  true  excellence  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  I  am  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  his  his- 
tory to  form  an  opinion  of  it.  "  I .  have  regularly 
and  attentively  read  these  holy  Scriptures,  and  am 
of  opinion  that  this  volume,  independently  of  its 
divine  origin,  contains  more  sublimity  and  beauty, 
more  pure  morality,  more  important  history,  and 
finer  strains  of  poetry  and  eloquence  than  can  be 
collected  from  all  other  books,  in  whatever  age  or 
language  they  may  have  been  composed."  It  is 
not  any  of  these  perfections  that  recommends  the 
Bible  to  the  attention  of  sinners.  This  may  recom- 
mend it  as  a  classical  book  of  morals  ;  but  it  is  the 
testimony  that  it  bears  to  Jesus  that  recommends 
it  to  the  guilty.     I  do  not  find  fault  with  Sir  Wil- 


TilE    SClilPTUliES.  285 

Ham's  remarking  of  those  excellencies ;  but,  in  a 
man  tliat  imderstood  the  Scriptures,  I  would  expect 
something  more.  It  is  like,  in  speaking  to  crimi- 
nals, proving  the  style  in  which  is  conveyed  the 
condemnation  by  the  judge,  or  the  reprieve  by  the 
sovereificn. 

The  honorable  Robert  Boyle,  we  are  informed, 
spent  his  "  whole  life  and  fortune  in  illustrating 
the  beauties  of  the  two  grand  volumes  of  creation 
and  revelation.  lie  has  said  everything  in  favor 
of  the  Bible  that  language  admits  of.  He  calls  it 
that  'matchless  book,'  and  has  written  a  whole 
volume  to  illustrate  its  beauties."  If  the  author 
could  have  informed  us  that  Mr.  Boyle  held  the 
apostolical  testimony  about  Jesus,  it  would  have 
enabled  us  to  rejoice  exceedingly  in  the  disin- 
terested zeal  of  this  truly  great  man.  If  he  con- 
fessed the  Gospel,  his  zeal  in  the  spreading  of  the 
Scriptures  was  a  testimony  in  favor  of  his  sincerity ; 
but  it  damps  my  joy  that  I  have  heard  he  was  an 
Arian,  or,  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  divine 
dignity  of  the  Son  of  God.  I  hope  I  have  been 
misinformed. 

''The  learned  Le  Clerc  teEs  us,"  says  our  author, 
"  that  while  he  was  compiling  his  '  Harmony,'  he 
was  so  struck  with  admiration  of  the  excellent  dis- 
courses of  Jesus,  and  so  inflamed  with  the  love  of 
his  most  holy  doctrines,  that  he  but  just  then 
began  to  be  acquainted  with  what  he  scarce  ever 


'    286  co:m^iendation  of 

laid  out  of  his  hands  from  his  infancy."  Admira- 
tion of  the  disconrses  of  Jestis,  and  love  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  a  system  of  2:>erfect  religion,  or  morality, 
do  not  characterize  a  man  as  a  Christian.  All  who 
heard  these  discourses  of  our  Lord  and  his  very 
manner,  could  not  but  confess  the  sujDerior  excel- 
lency of  his  doctrine.  I  have  no  objection  to  speak 
of  this  as  a  testimony  in  favor  of  the  Scriptures,  or 
of  the  Gospel ;  but  I  would  always  adduce  it  as 
a  testimony  forced  by  evidence  from  enemies.  Le 
Clerc,  with  all  his  learning  and  study,  if  he  tauglit 
salvation  in  any  other  way  than  by  having  faith  in 
the  atonement  of  Jesus,  imputed  for  righteousness, 
cannot  be  enrolled  amono;  Christians.  The  excel- 
lency  of  the  morality  of  Christ,  may  very  j^ro^^erly 
be  argued  from  the  confession  of  great  men,  and 
his  greatest  enemies  may  here  be  brought  in  as 
unsuspected  vouchers.  But  the  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion to  guilty  men,  through  faith  in  the  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  distinguishing  excellency  of 
the  Bible,  and  to  coniirm  it  by  testimonies  taken 
from  those  who  understand  not  this  excellency  is 
not  to  serve  it.  What  would  Elizabeth  have 
thought  of  one  of  her  friends,  who,  to  j^i'ove  the 
excellency  of  the  greatness  of  his  mistress,  would 
quote  the  approbation  of  the  lowest  political  pamph- 
leteers, wdio  understood  nothing  of  the  principles 
of  greatness  ?  What  would  Xewton  have  thou2:ht 
of  one  who  would  have  complimented  him  with  the 


THE    SCEIPTURES.  287 

approbation  of  some  writers  of  mathematical  ques- 
tions in  a  common  almanac,  who  understood  none 
of  his  great  principles  ?  What  would  Locke  have 
thought  had  some  of  his  friends  attempted  to  raise 
the  merit  of  his  metaphysics  by  the  approbation  of 
some  pedant  that  could  not  enter  into  any  of  his 
speculations  ?  And  what  is  the  Bible  obliged  to 
those  who  exhibit  in  its  favor,  the  compliments  of 
these  great  men,  who,  though  conversant  with  it, 
were  ignorant  of  its  chief  design  and  glory  ?  'No 
man's  praise,  however  sincere,  is  of  any  value 
further  than  his  knowledo-e.  "When  I  hear  a  coun- 
try  pedant  praising  another  as  the  most  consum- 
mate scholar,  though  I  may  be  fully  convinced  of 
his  sincerity,  I  cannot  give  the  smallest  weight  to 
his  testimony.  I  would  rather  hear  the  poorest, 
weakest,  and  most  illiterate  Christians  adduced  as 
vouchers  for  the  excellencies  of  the  Scriptures, 
than  all  the  enlightened  philosophers  and  states- 
men in  the  world.  They,  and  they  aloue,  are  a 
practical  proof  of  the  excellency  of  the  Scriptures, 
vrho,  by  understanding  them,  have  been  "  turned, 
from  darkness  to  light."  I  would  make  more 
account  of  the  testimony  of  poor  Josepli,  the  Lon- 
don idiot,  than  that  of  the  illustrious  JSTewton  or 
Locke. 


DIFFICULTIES  KlT  THE  WORKS  OF  GOD, 


DESIGNED   TO 


MAITIFEST  THE  UKBELIEF  OF  MEK 

DEtTT.    XIII.    1—3. 


There  is  one  point  of  analogy  in  tlie  works  of 
God,  which,  from  its  universality,  must  be  the 
effect  of  desim.  In  examinins^  the  ^YorlvS  of  crea- 
tion,  of  providence,  and  the  words  of  divine  grace, 
this  striking  singularity  presents  itself  to  us,  that 
in  all  there  are  instances  of  apj^arent  negligence,  or 
want  of  skill,  or  of  want  of  design,  or  of  inconsis- 
tency. As  this  phenomenon  is  viewed  in  any 
single  instance,  or  in  any  number  of  instances, 
without  a  reference  to  a  general  analogy,  it  has 
usually  afforded  a  plausible  source  of  objections  to 
unbelievers  of  every  kind.  The  Atheist,  the  Deist, 
the  opposer  of  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  the  adversaries  of  every  thing 
that  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  find  this  a  never- 
failing  refiige.  The  defenders  of  truth  have  as 
generally  overlooked  this  analogy  as  their  oppo- 


290  UNBELIEF. 

nents,  and  have,  consequently,  been  often  much 
embarrassed  in  repelling  objections.  How  often 
do  they  wish  that  in  His  works  and  in  His  word, 
God  had  been  a  little  more  on  His  guard,  and  not 
have  afforded  such  a  handle  to  error  ? 

To  those  who  perceive  this  analogy,  and  the  de- 
sign of  it,  the  wisdom  of  God  appears  in  a  character 
altogether  divine.  If,  in  all  His  works,  God  has 
left  sufficient  marks  of  the  impression  of  His  own 
hand,  there  is  no  necessity  that  He  should  shut  up 
every  avenue  to  invasion,  and  silence  incredulity 
by  permitting  no  occasion  to  make  it  manifest.  On 
the  contrary,  if  men  "  love  darkness  rather  than 
light,"  why  should  not  occasion  be  afforded  to  em- 
bolden them  to  make  known  their  choice  ?  If  men 
are  haters  of  God,  why  should  He  not  give  them 
opportunity  for  rebellion  ?  What  the  weakness  of 
man  would  incline  him  to  prevent  in  his  own  case, 
in  like  circumstances  human  wisdom  is  inclined  to 
wish  that  God  would  prevent  in  His  own. 

Let  us  turn  om*  eyes  to  the  works  of  creation, 
and  see  what  pretext  they  afford  to  the  Atheist. 
Time  and  the  discoveries  of  natural  philosophy 
have,  no  doubt,  deprived  him  of  many  of  his  argu- 
ments, or  answered  many  of  his  objections,  but  as 
much  still  remains  to  his  purpose  as  may  give  him 
room  to  talk.  What  a  disproportionate  share  of 
this  little  globe  do  we  find  under  seas !  How  much 
of  it  is  taken  up  mth  mountains,  sands,  and  unin- 


UNBELIEF.  291 

habitable  deserts!  How  much  rendered  noxious 
by  the  unwholesomeness  of  the  climate !  How 
much  scarcely  habitable  by  excessive  heats  and 
colds !  Of  what  use  are  those  immense  tracts 
covered  by  perpetual  snow  ?  "Why  are  these  seas 
impassible  by  mountains  of  ice?  By  such  argu- 
ments as  these,  Mr.  Hume  and  others  have  thought 
themselves  entitled  to  conclude  that  there  is  no 
sufficient  evidence  that  the  world  is  the  eifect  of 
a  designing  cause  or  if  there  is  design  in  the 
cause,  that  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  it 
was  guided  by  goodness  and  wisdom.  Tlie  philo- 
soj^hers  in  reply,  have,  no  doubt,  pointed  out  many 
useful  purposes  served  by  some  of  the  things  ob- 
jected to  by  the  Atheist,  and  have  made  the  best 
apology  they  could  for  others.  But  after  all  that 
can  be  said — it  must  be  owned  that  Almighty 
power  jomed  with  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness, 
could  have  produced  a  world  with  all  the  advan- 
tages of  the  present,  without  any  of  those  incon- 
veniences complained  of  by  the  Atheist.  In  stand- 
ing up  as  the  advocate  of  God,  the  philosopher 
rather  apologises  for  the  imperfections  of  the  objec- 
tionable parts  of  the  divine  workmanship,  than 
vindicates  their  wisdom.  It  appears  to  me,  that  in 
repelling  the  attacks  of  the  Atheist,  we  may  assume 
a  firmer  tone,  and  take  a  shorter  course.  When 
we  have  fi'om  the  innumerable  and  irresistible 
evidence  of  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness,  proved 


292  UNBELIEF. 

that  the  world  is  the  work  of  an  Almighty,  all  wise 
and  good  being,  we  are  not  bound  to  show  these 
perfections  in  every  acre  of  barren  sand.  We  need 
not  strnoro'le  with  him  abont  the  advantas^es  of 
mountains,  rocks,  and  deserts.  Whatever  other 
thing  God  may  have  designed  by  these,  one  obvi- 
ous use  of  them  is  to  afford  an  occasion  to  make 
manifest  the  pride  and  atheism  of  the  human 
heart. 

In  like  manner,  in  the  works  of  Providence,  many 
occasions  to  error  are  afforded.  Though  a  sparrow 
cannot  fall  to  the  ground  without  God's  knowledge, 
though  His  power  is  exerted  continually  about  all 
His  works,  it  is  astonishing  how  Providence  hides 
Himself  from  the  eyes  of  carnal  men.  lie  moves 
the  very  tongue  that  reviles  Him.  Yet  men  in 
general  perceive  no  need  for  His  operation,  except 
in  effecting  miracles.  What  are  called  the  laws  of 
nature,  are  merely  the  process  according  to  which 
He  usually  works  ;  but  in  this  way  He  hides  Him- 
self from  the  world,  and  has  given  occasion  to  them 
to  worship  this  idol  instead  of  Himself.  Kature  is 
the  god  most  usually  in  the  view  of  men.  In  send- 
ing good  and  evil,  God  gives  occasion  to  men  to  sup- 
pose that  there  is  no  particular  providence,  or  if 
theii'e  is,  that  he  makes  no  distinction  between  sin 
and  holiness.  My  field,  said  one,  produces  as  sure 
a  crop  as  that  of  my  neighbor. 

She  like  difficulties  occur  to  the  student  of  moral 


UNBELIEF.  293 

science.  How  many  plausible  objections  may  be 
made  to  the  testimony  even  of  the  senses.  By  a 
patient  collection  of  supposed  lying  reports,  we  are 
seriously  warned  not  to  trust  our  eyes,  our  ears,  or 
any  of  our  senses.  A  jaundiced  eye  makes  white 
appear  yellow;  therefore,  we  should  not  believe 
our  eyes,  when  they  tell  us  that  there  is  a  world.  A 
man  who  has  a  leg  cut  off,  may  feel  pain  in  a  toe 
of  that  foot  many  years  afterwards  ;  therefore,  it  is 
irrational  to  give  credit  to  the  testimony  of  feeling. 
A  ventriloquist  may  speak  so  as  to  make  us  believe 
that  the  voice  is  not  coming  from  himself,  but  from 
imder  the  earth,  from  the  clouds,  or  from  any  other 
quarter  ;  therefore,  we  ought  not  to  give  credit  to 
the  reports  of  om*  sense  of  hearing.  By  crossing 
our  fingers,  we  may  feel  a  little  ball  double,  there- 
fore we  ought  not  to  take  for  truth  the  reports  of 
feeling.  By  indisposition,  the  most  pleasant  food 
appears  of  a  different  taste ;  therefore  we  ought  not 
to  believe  the  sense  of  taste.  By  such  arguments 
as  these,  sceptical  philosophers  have  thought  them- 
selves justifiable  in  not  believing  the  existence  of  an 
external  world.  Who  thinks  a  pity  of  those  foolish 
wise  men  f  Is  it  not  right  that  they  should  have 
some  occasion  to  discover  to  the  world  their  mad- 


9 


ness« 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  Deist,  and  see  what  pre- 
text he  can  find  in  the  Scriptures  to  justify  his 
impiety.     There  is  enough  to  give  him  boldness  to 


29i"  UNBELIEF. 

declare  his  disapprobation  of  the  wisdom  of  God. 
See  what  a  formidable  series  of  seeming  inconve- 
niences and  contradictions  he  has  mnstered  up. 
How  many  people,  when  they  reflect  on  this  sub- 
ject, cannot  refrain  from  regretting  that  the  Scrip- 
tures contain  such  blemishes !  Though  they  allow 
that  the  difficulties  are  capable  of  solution,  they 
cannot  but  think  it  would  have  been  better,  had 
there  been  no  occasion  for  such  solutions.  This  is 
man's  wisdom,  but  God's  wisdom  is  different.  It 
gives  the  Infidel  a  handle  for  unbelief. 

The  same  point  of  analogy  discovers  itself  in 
every  thing  taught  in  Scripture.  The  Lord  Jesus 
and  the  AjDOstles  were  aware  of  the  coming  of  Anti- 
christ. Yet,  in  their  phraseology,  there  are  not 
wanting  occasions  of  seeming  justification  of  his 
pretensions.  When  Christ  gave  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  Peter,  and  the  power  of 
remitting  sins  to  the  Apostles,  could  he  not,  espe- 
cially as  he  must  have  been  aware  of  the  use  that 
afterwards  would  be  made  of  his  language,  have 
used  a  mode  of  expression  that  would  not  possibly 
have  admitted  of  such  perversion  ?  Do  not  most 
Protestants,  on  reading  the  words  referred  to,  wish 
that  Christ  had  been  a  little  more  circumspect  in 
his  phi'aseology  ?  To  me  it  apjpears  that  all  such 
expressions  are  intentionally  to  make  manifest 
those  who  hate  the  truth.  We  shall  find  that  the 
Socinian,  Arian,  and  every  other  enemy  of  the 


UNBELIEF.  295 

truth,  may  plead  from  Scripture  phraseology,  some 
plausible  defence  of  their  errors.  Men  in  general, 
who  oppose  these  errors,  would  most  scrupulously 
avoid  the  phraseology  that  God  seems  intentionally 
to  employ.  The  same  observation  may  be  made 
with  respect  to  all  the  differences  among  Christians. 
Yf  hat  can  be  alleged  by  any  of  them  against  any- 
thing that  is  taught  by  Scripture,  is  no  better  than 
what  can  be  alleged  b}^  the  greatest  unbelievers. 
By  perverting  Scripture  phraseology,  they  show 
their  disafiection  to  that  part  of  divine  truth  which 
they  have  not  been  taught. 

Instead  of  making  the  application,  as  might  be 
done  in  a  thousand  instances,  I  spare  the  feelings 
of  my  brethren,  and  leave  them  to  make  the  apj)li- 
cation  themselves.  If  the  works  of  creation  and 
Providence,  afford  a  pretext  to  the  perverseness  of 
men,  let  not  Christians  think  themselves  safe  when 
they  take  shelter  under  apparent  difficulties.  Were 
it  not  for  their  own  ignorance  and  alienation  from 
truth,  these  difficulties  would  have  no  weight. 


THE  STANDARD  OF  DIVINE  TRUTH. 


Before  any  important  advances  can  be  made  in 
any  science,  the  foundations  of  it  must  be  ascer- 
tained and  accurately  discerned  by  those  employed 
in  rearing  the  superstructure.  Yv^hatever  rests  on 
any  other  gromids,  though  it  may  add  to  the  appa- 
rent size  of  the  building,  diminishes  its  strength 
and  beauty.  For  more  than  two  thousand  years, 
the  inquiries  of  23hilosophers  concerning  the  works 
of  God,  were  carried  on  by  hypothesis  invented  by 
ingenious  men,  for  explaining  the  phenomena  of 
nature,  and  during  all  that  time,  few  real  discove- 
ries were  made  with  respect  either  to  matter  or 
mind.  Lord  Bacon  was  the  first  who  clearly  point- 
ed out  the  proper  method  of  philosophising ;  Sir 
Isaac  J^ewton  on  natural  philosoj^hy,  and  Doctor 
Keid  on  the  science  of  the  mind,  were  the  first  to 
put  it  in  practice.  In  both  of  these  departments 
of  knov/ledge,  one  theory  succeeded  another  till  the 


298  STAJSTDARD   OF 

time  of  these  illustrious  pliilosophers ;  but  sinct 
that  period,  their  respective  sciences  rest  upon  a 
foundation  from  which  they  can  never  be  moved. 
And  what  has  produced  this  remarkable  difierence 
between  their  systems,  and  those  of  all  preceding 
philosophers  ?  It  is  solely  to  the  standard  of  truth 
which  they  ascertained,  and  to  which  in  all  their  en- 
quii'ies  they  appealed.  Had  he  invented  a  theory,  and 
l^roceeded  by  conjecture,  iS'ewton,  with  all  his  vast 
abilities,  would  have  reared  only  a  temporary  fabric 
to  be  blown  away  by  the  next  innovator.  The  phi- 
losophy of  Aristotle  reigned  in  the  schools  without 
a  rival,  till  the  time  of  Des  Cartes.  That  great  man 
completely  overtm'ned  the  theories  of  the  Stagyi*ite, 
but  instead  of  building  on  more  stable  ground,  he 
set  himself  to  invent  a  theory  of  his  own.  By  the 
contrivance  of  an  immense  whirlpool  of  subtle  mat- 
ter, he  carried  round  the  heavenly  bodies  in  their 
evolutions,  like  straws  and  chaff  in  a  tub  of  water ; 
and  this  wild  conjecture  satisfied  a  great  part  of 
the  learned  of  Europe  for  a  considerable  time,  and 
w^th  many,  prevented  the  reception,  even  of  the 
discoveries  of  JN'ewton,  for  half  a  century.  De- 
spising vain  conjectures,  and  being  guided  in  his 
experiments  and  observations  by  those  self-evident 
rules  of  philosophising  which  he  had  laid  down, 
Kewton  ascertained  those  laws  of  nature  that  must 
forever  give  satisfaction  to  the  mind  of  man. 
The  revolution  effected  by  Doctor  Keid  in  the 


DIVINE   TUUTIl.  299 

philosophy  of  the  mind,  is  not  less  wonderful  than 
that  effected  by  Sir  Isaac  E'ewton,  in  that  of 
matter.  By  taking  for  granted  principles  that  are 
false,  and  rejecting  the  authority  of  others  that  are 
self-evident,  philosophy,  till  his  time,  had  estab- 
lished the  most  monstrous  and  incredible  absurd- 
ities. The  principles  adopted  by  philosophers  had 
rejected  the  testimony  of  the  senses,  and  left  no 
evidence  even  that  there  is  an  external  world.  By 
the  most  conclusive  reasoning  from  these  principles, 
Berkley  had  proved  that  there  is  no  matter  in  the 
universe,  and  with  equal  validity  Hume  advanced 
a  step  farther,  and  boldly  annihilated  both  matter 
and  mind.  According  to  this  great  philosopher, 
there  is  neither  matter  nor  mind,  neither  God  nor 
devil,  nor  angel  nor  spirit,  nothing  in  the  universe 
but  impressions  and  ideas.  And  all  these  mon- 
strous absurdities  flowed  regularly  from  the  princi- 
ples acknowledged  by  all  philosophers  till  the  time 
of  Doctor  Reid.  And  how  did  Reid  restore  us  the 
Avorld,  from  the  united  grasp  of  all  the  wise  men 
of  the  world  ?  By  settling  the  standard  of  philoso- 
phical truth,  by  vindicating  the  authority  of  the 
testimony  of  our  senses,  and  rejecting  that  of  the 
figments  of  philosophers.  In  ascertaining  the 
powers  and  faculties  of  the  human  mind,  he  ad- 
mitted no  appeal  but  to  the  mind  itself  by  observa- 
tion and  experiment ;  and  every  fair  result  of  such 
an  appeal  he  received  with  avidity,  however  oppo- 


300  STAJSfDAKD   OF 

site  to  the  established  sentiments  of  philosophers? 
By  this  j)rocess  he  has  clone  more  to  ascertain  the 
principles  of  the  himian  constitution,  than  all  the 
philosophers  who  preceded  him ;  and  its  only  by 
following  in  his  track  that  this  science  can  be 
perfected. 

It  would  not  be  without  interest  for  a  Christian 
to  read  the  observations  of  this  j)hilosopher  on 
hypotheses,  as  almost  without  exception,  they  ap- 
ply to  the  theories  of  men  with  resjDect  to  the 
contents  of  the  Scriptures.  If  hypotheses  have  led 
men  to  misinterpret  the  works  of  God,  hypotheses 
have  led  them  to  misinterpret  His  word.  The 
analogy  is  singularly  striking. 

And  if  human  conjecture  has  ever  failed  with 
respect  to  the  works  of  creation,  shall  it  succeed 
with  respect  to  the  depths  of  the  divine  comisels  in 
the  redemption  of  sinners  ?  Yain  theologians,  will 
ye  not  learn  from  this  that  the  way  to  discover  the 
mind  of  God,  is  not  to  form  hypotheses,  but  to 
examine  the  Scriptures?  What  is  it  produces 
your  infinite  diversities?  How  is  it  ye  deduce 
from  Scripture  your  innumerable  errors  ?  Ye  form 
theories,  and  then  wrest  the  Scriptures  to  agree 
with  these.  With  the  arrogance  of  Satan,  ye  de- 
termine, by  your  own  views,  what  must  be  the 
divine  conduct  and  plans,  and  with  satanic  inge- 
nuity and  effrontery,  ye  torture  His  word  to  speak 
your  sentiments.     While  in  words  ye  acknowledge 


DIVINE   TEUTIl.  301 

the  Scriptures  to  be  a  standard,  ye  take  the  li])erty 
of  erecting  a  standard  of  j)aramount  authority  in 
your  own  understandings,  and  of  interpreting  the 
oracles  of  God,  by  the  delusions  of  your  own  fan- 
cies. Though  ye  call  the  Scriptures  a  standard,  ye 
do  not  allow  them  to  be  the  sole  standard  of  divine 
truth.  Some  things,  ye  say,  God  has  left  to  be 
planned  by  the  wisdom  of  man.  How,  then,  can 
ye  escape  error?  How  can  ye  agree  with  each 
other  ?  Christians,  have  ye  no  errors,  have  ye  no 
differences  ?  Believe  it,  they  are  mostly  owing  to 
the  same  cause.  Strange  as  on  first  view  it  may 
appear.  Christians  do  not  all  agree  in  the  source  of 
religious  sentiments.  Do  not  some,  even  till  this 
moment,  contend  that  some  things  are  left  to  human 
institution  ?  What  common  principle  have  v/e  then 
to  reason  with  such?  With  them  the  Scriptures 
are  not  the  sole  standard.  Others  by  distinctions 
and  difference  of  times,  and  various  inventions, 
have  considerably  abridged  this  standard,  so  that 
almost  the  half  of  its  testimony  is  not  heard  in  evi- 
dence, but  rejected  as  irrelevant.  The  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  treated  like  that  of  an  old 
honest  but  doating  man,  who  speaks  now  and  then 
to  the  purpose,  but  is  perpetually  subject  to  mental 
wanderings.  Even  among  those  who  aclmowledge 
the  Scriptures  as  the  sole  standard,  I  find  there 
are  vam  controvertists,  who  steadily  and  uniformly 
act  up  to   their   avowed  principles.     When   the 


302  STANDARD  OF  DIVINE   TRUTH. 

iiiterest  of  a  favorite  dogma  is  at  stake,  every  arti- 
fice is  employed  to  make  the  witness  prevaricate. 
"With  all  their  deference  for  the  authority  of  the 
divine  word,  how  do  they  grapple  with  it,  when  it 
seems  to  enjoin  any  disagreeable  practice  ?  Chris- 
tians, in  ascertaining  the  mind  of  God,  let  lis 
banish  all  the  prejudices  and  ^^repossessions  of  our 
own  minds.  Let  us  listen  to  the  Scriptures  as  the 
rule,  as  the  perfect  standard.  Let  nothing  be 
received,  because  it  commends  itself  to  our  wisdom ; 
let  nothing  be  objected  for  want  of  this  sanction. 
Let  us  remember  that,  in  all  things,  the  wisdom  of 
God  is  not  like  the  wisdom  of  man. 


FAITH   THE   FOUNDATION 


GREATER   PART   OF   HUMAN    KNOWLEDGE. 


Philosophees  have  labored  much  to  rest  all  their 
knowledge  on  the  foundations,  not  only  of  self-evi- 
dent, but  of  necessary  truth.  They  have  esteemed 
it  an  affront  to  their  art,  not  to  be  able  to  deduce 
all  their  doctrines  from  the  intuitive  light  of  their 
own  reasoning  faculty.  Evidence  has  been  sup- 
posed to  consist  in  the  perception  of  the  agreement' 
or  disagreement  of  our  ideas  ;  and  consequently,  to 
believe  any  thing  which  is  not  the  result  of  the 
operation  of  reason,  is  to  believe  without  authority. 

For  this  purpose  some  of  our  greatest  philoso- 
phers have  renounced  the  empire  of  common  sense, 
and  commenced  their  career  with  universal  scepti- 
cism. Even  their  own  existence,  and  the  existence 
of  the  world,  cannot  be  taken  for  granted.  These 
truths  must  be  proved  by  reason,  or  they  must 
want  a  foundation.     But  tliey  have  labored  in  vain. 


304:  FOrXDATION    OF    KNOWLEDGE. 

After  all  the  exertions  of  the  greatest  human  facul- 
ties, it  cannot  be  proved  even  that  there  is  a  world, 
unless  implicit  credence  is  given  to  the  testimony 
of  the  senses.  ]^ot  only  do  men  in  general,  but 
even  philosophers  themselves,  continue  to  believe 
in  then*  own  existence  and  in  the  existence  of  the 
world,  not  fi-om  the  arguments  alleged  by  Des 
Cartes,  Malebranche,  Arnauld,  and  Locke,  but  from 
the  testimony  of  consciousness  and  the  senses. 

The  theologian  who  loves  to  strut  in  the  philoso- 
pher's steps,  and  to  ape  his  sentiments  and  language, 
has  also  talked  much  of  subjecting  the  contents  of 
the  word  of  God  to  the  control  and  determinations 
of  reason.  What  cannot  be  comprehended  or 
accounted  for  by  the  reasoning  faculty,  it  is  sup- 
posed ii-rational  to  believe.  With  this  standard  in 
his  hands,  he  goes  through  the  Scriptures,  pruning, 
and  retrenching,  and  refining,  and  supplying,  that 
the  dictates  of  the  S23irit  may  be  modelled,  so  as  to 
pass  the  review  of  human  reason. 

According  to  their  different  degrees  of  intrepid- 
ity and  prejudice,  the  various  sects  have  modelled 
the  Scriptures  by  the  principles  of  reason.  Some 
content  themselves  by  taking  from  divine  truth 
some  of  her  strongest  features,  and  giving  her  those 
additional  graces  that  human  w^isdom  can  supply ; 
while  others  deface  every  marked  feature  in  her 
countenance,  diminish  her  to  a  very  pigmy,  and 
instead   of  her  own  noble  deportment,  give  her 


FOUNDATION    OF   KNOWLEDGE.  305 

the  airs,  gestures,  and  voice  of  our  rational  Chris- 
tians. 

It  is  no  unpleasing  thing  to  find  these  vain  pre- 
tensions refuted  and  ridiculed,  even  in  the  philoso- 
pher, by  the  first  name  in  moral  science.  Doctor 
Eeid  irresistibly  proves  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
Imowledge,  even  of  the  philosopher,  rests  upon 
foundations  of  which  no  account  can  be  given. 
Many  things,  we  believe,  not  because  our  reasoning 
fiiculty  perceives  the  evidence,  but  because,  by  the 
principles  of  our  constitution,  we  are  irresistibly 
determined  to  believe.  Reason,  he  asserts,  can  lay 
no  claim  to  the  greater  part  of  the  Imowledge  of 
which  philosophy  boasts.  "  By  his  reason  he  can 
discover  certain  abstract  and  necessary  solutions  of 
things ;  but  his  knowledge  of  what  really  exists,  or 
did  exist,  comes  by  another  channel,  which  is  open 
to  those  who  cannot  reason.  He  is  lost  to  it  in  the 
dark,  and  knows  not  how  he  come  by  it." 

How  is  the  philosopher  assured  that  he  thinks, 
and  reasons,  and  exists?  Is  the  belief  of  these 
truths  a  deduction  of  his  reason ;  or  must  he  de- 
pend solely  on  the  testimony  of  his  consciousness 
for  the  reality  of  these  things?  Why  does  he  be- 
lieve the  reports  of  memory  with  respect  to  what 
happened  to  him  the  preceding  hour?  Does  he 
ever  seek  any  other  reason  than  that  he  clearly 
remembers  it  ?  Yet  the  belief  of  the  veracity  of 
memory  is  not  a  deduction  of  memory,  but  a  prin- 


306  FOUNDATION    OF    KNOAVLEDGE. 

ciple  of  the  human  constitution.  Let  him  open  his 
eyes  and  look  at  the  sun.  AVhv,  great  philosopher, 
do  you  believe  in  tlie  existence  of  yon  vast  orb  of 
light?  Can  you  prove  it  by  abstract  reasoning? 
Is  your  conviction  the  result  of  the  operation  of 
your  reasoning  powers?  'No.  You  believe  that 
the  sun  exists,  because  you  see  it.  You  have  no 
better  foundation  for  your  conviction  than  the  ab- 
solutely perfect  reliance  you  have  in  the  testimony 
of  the  senses.  And  what  are  the  senses  ?  Are  they 
not  witnesses  appointed  by  God  to  report  to  you 
certain  truths  that  are  necessary  for  3'our  welfare  ? 
You  receive  the  report  of  your  senses  with  the 
unsuspecting  confidence  of  a  little  child ;  but  the 
testimony  of  God  in  the  Scriptures,  with  respect  to 
His  own  character,  and  the  work  of  His  son  Jesus 
Christ,  you  will  not  receive  upon  all  the  authority 
of  the  Almighty.  Yet,  you  never  will  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  unless  you  receive  it  as  a 
little  child.  The  testimony  of  God  must  be  received 
on  the  authority  of  the  reporter.  Imj^licit  credence 
must  be  given  to  his  word,  without  requiring  cor- 
roboration from  the  testimony  of  human  reason. 
We  can  give  no  more  account  of  our  belief  of  the 
existence  of  the  w^orld,  than  of  our  belief  of  the 
character  and  atonement  of  the  Son  of  God. 

"What  a  vast  proportion  of  our  knowledge  depends 
upon  the  testimony  of  men !  Were  we  to  refuse 
assent  to  everv  thina;  but  what  comes  under  our 


FOUNDATION    OF    KNOWLEDGE.  307 

own  iimnecliate  review,  w'e  would  sweep  away  all 
our  laiowledge  of  foreign  countries  and  of  past 
times,  and  reject  the  immense  treasures  heaped  up 
for  our  use  by  the  experience  of  others.  On  these 
principles  the  greatest  genius  on  earth  would  never 
advance  beyond  childhood.  But  whatever  incre- 
dulity a  man  may  profess,  he  is  irresistibly  deter- 
mined to  rely  upon  the  testimony  of  others,  and  it 
is  not  till  we  are  deceived  that  we  learn  to  regulate 
our  belief  in  human  testimony  by  the  criterion  that 
experience  has  proved  to  be  a  necessary  limitation. 
If,  then,  we  believe  the  testimony  of  men,  greater 
is  the  testimony  of  God.  "Why,  then,  will  not  men 
submit  to  the  report  that  God  has  given  of  His  son  ? 
Was  the  credibility  of  any  witnesses  ever  better 
attested  than  that  of  the  Apostles?  Was  there 
ever  any  historical  fact  better  proved  than  the 
death,  resurrection,  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
Does  the  authenticity  of  any  book  present  such  a 
mass  of  varied  evidence  as  the  Bible  ?  The  voice 
of  the  Lord,  attested  by  innumerable  credible  wit- 
nesses, calls  continually  from  heaven,  proclaiming 
mercy,  through  belief  in  the  atonement,  to  the  vilest 
of  the  human  race ;  yet  men  in  general,  instead  of 
hailing  the  good  news,  go  about  to  fortify  themselves 
in  rejecting  the  credibility  of  the  message.  The 
multitudes  that  pretend  to  pay  any  attention  to  the 
voice  of  God,  instead  of  receiving  the  testimony  of 
the  divine  word,  like  that  of  any  plain  honest  man, 


308  FOUNDATION    OF   KNOWLEDGE. 

in  the  evident  sense  of  the  language,  have  employed 
themselves  in  altering  the  report,  and  suiting  it  to 
the  corrupt  tastes  of  the  various  classes  of  society. 
In  this  place  we  hear  the  Apostles  speaking  like 
philosophers,  and  preaching  the  doctrine  of  the  ra- 
tional Christians.  In  another  they  assume  the  gri- 
mace and  cant  of  enthusiasm.  Here  they  are  made 
to  utter  the  dictates  of  moral  science,  and  there  they 
enjoin  the  austerities  of  monkish  superstition.  With 
some  you  would  think  that  they  had  no  other  busi- 
ness but  to  wrangle  about  party  politics ;  with 
others,  they  are  thought  fit  for  no  other  employ- 
ment but  the  civilization  of  barbarians  or  the  regu- 
lating of  the  manners  of  society. 

Let  Christians  seek  no  other  authority  for  the 
belief  of  anvthinii:,  than  that  God  has  tau^^ht  it  in 
His  word.  While  others  show  their  rebellion  agaiiLst 
God,  by  replying  against  His  word,  let  them  receive 
with  promptness  and  gratitude  every  coiiimimica- 
tion  of  the  unerring  word. 


,  THE 


WOBLD  BY  WISDOM  KNEW  lOT  GOD. 


1  Cor.  I.  21. 


The  powers  of  the  human  mincl,  though  puny  in 
comparison  ^vith  the  divine  wisdom,  are  great  in 
themselves.  Though  unequal  to  the  task  frequently 
assigned  them,  their  efforts,  when  legitim.ately  em- 
ployed, are  truly  astonishing.  The  great  intellects 
of  De8  Cartes  and  Leibnitz,  when  employed  hypo- 
thetically  on  the  formation  of  worlds,  are  lost  in  an 
abyss.  Their  theories  are  only  the  ingenious  reve- 
ries of  learned  machnen.  But  when  we  behold  in 
JN'ewton  the  lawful  direction  of  the  human  faculties, 
we  are  constrained  to  admire  their  wonderful  capa- 
city. What  an  amazing  depth  have  the  intellects 
of  that  single  man  penetrated  into  the  works  of 
God !  The  worlds  formed  by  the  imagination  of 
other  philosophers,  he  overthrew  with  a  touch,  and 
discovered  the  admirable  sim23licity  of  the  laws  that 
govern  the  works  of  creation.  Has  the  sagacity 
and  patient  exercise  of  the  familties  of  the  human 


310  THE   WORLD   BY   WISDOM 

mind  determined  tlie  motions,  dimensions,  and  dis- 
tances 01  the  heavenly  bodies  ?  Look  into  the 
discoveries  of  natural  philosophy,  and  admire  the 
extent  of  human  intellect.  On  the  foundation  of  a 
few  axioms  what  a  stupendous  fabric  has  been 
reared  by  mathematics  !  In  every  human  science 
where  the  powers  of  man  have  been  properly 
directed,  there  success  has  been  superior  to  the 
most  sanguine  anticipation.  The  inspiration  of  the 
Ahnighty  hath  given  him  understandmg. 

But  let  us  try  these  wise  men  on  things  that 
relate  to  God.  Have  they  discovered  the  glories 
of  the  divine  character  ?  Have  they  made  a  j)ro- 
per  estimate  of  the  character  of  man  ?  Have  they 
perceived  the  origin  of  the  guilt  and  misery  of  the 
human  race  ?  Have  they  seen  that  men  are  by 
nature  universally  in  rebellion  against  theii*  maker, 
and,  consequently,  the  children  of  wrath  ?  Have 
they  discovered  the  way  to  heaven?  Have  they 
told  us  how  God  can  be  both  just  and  merciful — • 
the  just  God,  yet  the  Saviour  of  the  ungodly? 
Have  all  their  searches  after  God  discovered  His 
nature,  or  given  any  light  to  the  guilty,  in  order 
acceptably  to  approach  Him?  'No;  in  all  these 
things  they  are  very  childi'en.  In  answering  these 
questions,  they  are  like  men  shooting  at  a  mark  in 
the  blackness  of  midnight. 

That  God  might  give  a  fair  trial  to  the  efforts  of 
human  wisdom  on^these  subjects,  and  silence  for- 


KNEW    NOT   GOD.  311 

ever  the  arrogant  pretensions  of  philosophy,  learn- 
ing had  been  deeply  cultivated  for  several  centuries 
before  the  proclamation  of  that  truth  that  saves  the 
sinner.  For  a  period  of  more  than  five  hundi*ed 
years,  the  subtlety  of  the  genius  of  the  philosophers 
of  Greece  had  been  diligently  and  enthusiastically 
employed  in  inquu-ies  about  God,  virtue,  and  hap- 
piness. But  in  all  these  five  hundi-ed  years,  mstead 
of  discovering  anything  like  the  truth  they  made 
not  the  smallest  approaches  towards  it.  Instead  of 
pointing  out  the  true  way  to  virtue  and  happiness, 
their  learned  theories  only  bloated  the  mind  with 
increased  measures  of  vanity,  and  served  to  show 
that  the  wickedness  of  the  human  heart  increases 
with  an  mcrease  of  its  wisdom.  These  Vv^ise  men 
difiered  from  the  vulgar  only  in  the  excess  of  their 
arrogance.  Their  investigations  led  to  scepticism 
or  atheism ;  and  when  they  had  not  these  results, 
they  never  raised  an  individual  above  the  folly  of 
pollytheism.  It  is  usual  with  the  learned  men  of 
modern  times,  to  endeavor  to  cover  the  nakedness 
of  their  ancient  brethren.  In  excuse  for  the  worship 
of  the  gods  by  the  sages  of  Greece  and  Eome,  it  is 
alleged  that  their  compliance  was  only  out  of  con- 
straint or  courtesy.  K  the  excuse  is  founded  in 
truth,  it  condemns  their  honesty,  and  robs  these 
boasted  sages  of  all  pretensions  to  virtue.  While 
they  talked  so  much  of  truth  and  of  virtue,  how 
can  they  be  justified  in  not  confessing  the  truth 


312  THE   WORLD   BY   WISDOM 

wliicli  they  are  supposed  to  possess  ?  But,  althougli 
they  occasionally  speak  something  rationally  of 
some  of  the  divine  attributes,  there  is,  in  my  appre- 
hension, not  the  smallest  reason  to  suppose  that  any 
of  them  who  were  not  Atheists,  were  anything  but 
Polytheists.  The  patriarch  of  the  heathen  world, 
(as  Socrates  is  styled,  I  think  by  Lord  Shaftesbury,) 
though  ridiculed  on  the  stage  by  Aristophanes  as 
an  Atheist,  died  in  the  sincere  profession  of  the 
worship  of  the  gods.  Before  his  death,  he  ordered 
his  friend  to  sacrifice  a  cock  to  Esculapius.  What 
were  the  gods  of  the  Epicureans  ?  Lazy,  volup- 
tuous sensualists,  who  lived  at  a  great  distance 
above  the  clouds,  and  took  no  concern  about  the 
affairs  of  men.  What  a  poor  view  of  the  divine 
character  was  entertained  by  the  stoics,  is  seen 
in  every  line  of  their  philosophy.  Their  man  of 
virtue  was  superior  to  theu*  Jupiter.  Instead  of 
needing  mercy  from  divine  clemency,  he  scorned 
to  crouch  under  all  the  effects  of  the  unj)rovoked 
rage  of  heaven.  The  wise  man  might  be  happy 
independent  of  Jupiter,  and  even  as  his  opponent; 
yet,  as  the  Pharisees  among  the  religious  sects  of 
the  Jews,  the  Stoics  were  the  strictest  sect  among 
the  philosophers. 

That  the  highest  efforts  of  human  wisdom  might 
be  exerted,  there  was  nothing  wanted  to  stimulate 
their  genius.  They  were  divided  into  different 
sects,  who  were  perpetually  at  war.     Each  philo- 


KA'EW    NOT    GOD.  313 

sopher  was  roused  by  all  the  strongest  passions,  to 
labor  for  the  honor  of  his  system.  Philosophy  was 
not  merely  the  ornament,  but  the  very  business  of 
life  for  thousands  of  the  acutest  men.  The  appro- 
bation of  numerous  disciples  increased  the  exer- 
tions of  the  heads  of  sects,  and  the  perpetual  dis- 
cussions among  their  followers,  could  not  but 
sharpen  the  penetration,  and  increase  the  vigor,  of 
the  human  mind.  As  war  increases  the  courage 
and  prowess  of  nations,  controversy  undoubtedl}'' 
increases  the  energy  of  the  mental  powers  among 
warring  sects.  And  what  was  the  result  of  all 
their  inquiries,  of  all  their  intricate  discussions  ? 
Let  us  receive  an  answer  to  this  question  :ft'om  the 
mouth  of  God  Himself:  "For  it  is  written,  I  will 
destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  will  bring  to 
nothing  the  understanding  of  the  prudent.  Where 
is  the  wise  ?  Vvliere  is  the  scribe  ?  where  is  the 
dispnter  of  this  world?  Ilatli  not  God  made 
foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world ?  For  after  that 
in  the  wisdom  of  God  the  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of 
preaching  to  save  them  that  believe."—!  Cor.  i. 
19-21.  So  far  from  discovering  the  divine  charac- 
ter, and  the  plan  of  salvation,  God  testifies  of  these 
sages,  that,  professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they 
became  fools.      * 

That  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  still  not  only 
unequal  to  the  discovery  of  divine  truth,  but  in 


ol4:  •  TliE   WOELD   BY   WISDOM 

dreadful  opposition  to  it,  when  discovered,  is  seen 
in  the  doctrines  of  our  modern  philosophers.  In 
many  things  respecting  the  perfections  of  God, 
they  speak  more  rationally  than  their  ancient 
brethren,  owing  to  the  light  of  revelation,  which 
sheds  some  of  its  rays  on  those  who  are  blind  to  its 
true  glory.  They  have  rejected  polytheism,  and 
ascribe  immensity,  and  eternity,  and  many  other 
attributes,  to  their  god.  But  he  is  a  god,  perfect 
neither  in  mercy  nor  in  justice.  He  neither  saves 
the  guilty,  nor  condemns  every  transgressor.  With 
the  above  exceptions,  the  god  of  the  philosopher  is 
not  materially  diflerent  from  the  god  of  the  ancient 
sage.  Their  man  of  virtue  is  in  every  essential 
point  the  same.  Modern  philosophers  are  even 
found  to  acknowledge  this.  They  are  willing  to 
give  a  just  theme  of  praise  to  the  haj)py  tendency 
of  the  labors  of  their  great  predecessors.  Mr. 
Dugald  Stewart,  the  greatest  living  philosopher  in 
the  science  of  mind,  expressly  asserts  that  some  of 
the  ancient  systems  were  rather  defective  than 
erroneous.  Philosophy  has  never  changed  her 
tone.  The  soul  of  her  systems  in  every  age  is 
the  same.  She  is  every  where  known  by  her 
hatred  of  the  true  character  of  God,  and  her 
enconiums  on  the  virtue  of  human  kind.  If  ever 
she  succeeds  in  bringing  men  to^  find  happiness, 
it  wiU  be  by  storming  the  gates  of  heaven  by 
the  artillery  of  moral  worth.     Learn,  then,  proud 


KNEW    HOY  GOD.  315 

pliilosoj)her,  that  your  wisdom  is  folly  iu  the  esti- 
mation of  God.  Renomice  your  atheistical  de- 
lusions— submit  to  the  wisdom  of  God — receive 
the  atonement  of  Jesus.  If  any  man  is  wise  in 
this  world,  let  him  become  a  fool,  that  he  may 
be  wise. 


THE  TESTlMOivTY  OF  THE  LORD 

MAKES  WISE  THE  SIMPLE. 


The  question  which,  m  yarn,  is  put  to  the  wis- 
dom of  this  world,  receives  a  satisfactory  answer 
from  the  weakest  of  those  who  are  taught  of  God. 
Ask  the  authors  of  aU  the  systems  of  philosophy 
that  ever  were  promulgated,  how  a  sinner  can  be 
saved,  and  you  will  receive  an  answer  very  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  Scriptures.     They  whose  genius 
has  invented  the  most  profound  and  subtle  theories, 
supported  by  the  most  abstruse  speculations— they 
who  have  discovered  the  laws  that  regulate  the 
course  of  nature—they  who  can  solve  the  most 
difficult  problems   in   the   abstract   sciences,  will 
speak    like    children    or    simpletons,    when    they 
attempt  to  point  the  way  of  fiiUen  man  to  heaven. 
They  will  talk  inconsistently  of  virtue  and  of  merit, 
of  mercy  and  of  justice,  of  imperfection   and  of 
moral  worth.     If  they  deign  to  recognize  the  Chris- 


318  MAKING    WISE   THE   SBIPLE. 

tian  system  under  any  view,  it  is  only  to  make  it 
speak  their  own  sentiments,  and  sanction  their  vain 
speculations  by  the  authority  of  heaven.  Kone  of 
all  the  mere  philosophers  that  ever  lived  could  per- 
ceive how  mercy  and  truth  meet  together,  righteous- 
ness and  peace  kiss  each  other.  There  is  a  parable 
in  their  sentiments  on  this  subject,  and  each  sys- 
tem differs  not  more  fi'om  truth,  than  one  j^art  of 
it  does  from  the  other.  K  human  virtue  is  acknow- 
ledged by  all  to  be  imperfect,  it  must  come  short 
of  the  standard  by  which  it  is  to  be  measured. 
How,  then,  can  it  either  merit  reward,  or  screen 
from  punishment?  That  which  comes  not  up  to 
the  standard,  is  in  all  things  rejected.  If  God  has 
not  raised  that  standard  unreasonably  high,  there 
can  be  no  excuse  for  coming  short  of  it.  If  God 
does  not  requii-e  men  to  come  up  to  Ilis  standard, 
in  order  to  escape  punishment,  or  receive  a  reward, 
then  His  standard  becomes  no  standard.  It  lies, 
then,  upon  philosophers  and  theologians,  who  pro- 
pagate the  sentim^ents  of  philosophers,  to  point  out 
that  second  standard,  and  to  ascertain  the  neces- 
sary degrees  of  excellence.  But  human  vii-tue  is 
defective,  even  according  to  the  standard  of  philo- 
sophers themselves.  How,  then,  can  the  best  of 
men  escape  divine  ^vi*ath  ?  ISTo  mere  philosopher 
will  ever  succeed  in  giving  consistency  even  to  his 
own  scheme. 

But  while  the  wise  men  of  this  world  talk  at 


MAKING   WISE   THE   SIMPLE.  319 

random  about  the  divine  attributes,  and  flatter 
their  deity  with  a  pomp  of  incongruous  phraseology, 
the  illiterate  peasant,  who  is  taught  by  the  Word 
of  God,  exhibits  the  divine  attributes  in  all  their 
extent,  expatiates  with  wonder  on  their  harmony, 
and  proclaims  the  name  of  that  God,  whom  to 
know  is  eternal  life.  The  truth  that  the  wisest  of 
the  sons  of  men  do  not  understand,  is  understood 
by  thousands  of  the  weak  things  of  this  world. 
Ask  poor  Joseph,  the  London  simpleton,  the  way 
to  heaven,  and  he  will  reply  :  "  It  is  a  faithful  say- 
ing, and  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  that  Jesus  Christ 
came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  not  excepting 
the  very  chief." 

It  is  astonishing  to  observe  what  cultivation  of 
mind  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  confers  on  the 
illiterate.  They  are  enabled  to  talk  rationally  and 
consistently  on  the  divine  character  and  plan  of 
salvation,  when  there  is  nothing  but  darkness, 
inconsistency,  and  error,  in  the  discourses  of  the 
philosopher.  Viewing  this  world  in  the  light  in 
which  it  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures,  they 
obtain  more  correct  views  of  everything  respecting 
the  state  of  man,  and  the  divine  government.  The 
present  state  of  man  is  the  most  difficult  problem 
that  human  wisdom  has  to  encounter — a  problem 
that  it  cannot  solve.  But  the  knowleds-e  of  the 
truth  explains  all  the  phenomena  of  human  conduct, 
and  makes  the  Christian  the  only  true  philosopher. 


320  MATCTNa  >^^SE  Tin:  si:viple. 

Self-knowledge,  it  has  always  been  the  boast  of 
philosophy  to  confer,  and  her  employment  to  re- 
commend. "  Know  thyself,"  is  the  great  hijnnc- 
tion  of  the  ancient  philosopher,  which  has  always 
been  supposed  to  contain  the  essence  of  all  wisdom. 
But  no  man  knows  himself,  till  he  Imows  the  truth 
in  which  his  true  character  and  situation  are  exhi- 
bited. Of  all  truths,  self-knowledge  is  the  one  of 
which  the  philosopher  is  most  ignorant.  He  6j)ecu- 
lates  on  the  human  character,  and  traces  the 
sources  of  human  action ;  but  he  wants  the  key 
that  can  alone  open  the  secret  recesses  of  the  heart. 
He  may  ascertain  with  great  accuracy,  the  various 
powers  and  faculties  of  the  mind,  and  communicate 
many  valuable  observations  on  their  culture ;  but, 
to  the  moral  state  of  the  mind,  he  is  an  utter 
stranger.  Partiality  to  himself  and  his  race,  makes 
him  mistake  its  language  on  this  subject.  He 
hides  the  depravity  of  human  thought,  and  veils 
the  evil  that  appears  in  the  conduct,  under  the 
names  of  imperfection,  or  defective  virtue.  "When 
he  di'aws  a  picture  of  human  nature,  flattery  guides 
the  pencil.  Her  hectic  cheek  he  suftnses  with  the 
redness  of  health  and  vigor,  and  her  loathsome  dis- 
eases he  throws  into  the  shade,  or  covers  with 
dra]3ery.  While  the  philosophers  motto  is,  "  Ivuow 
thyself,"  it  ought  rather  to  be,  "  know  everything 
but  thyself." 

Tlie  Christian,  however  illiterate,  views  human 


2.IAKING    WISE    THE    SXl^n'LE.  321 

nature  iu  a  juster  light.  lie  traces  iier  seeming 
vii'tues  to  their  true  source,  either  in  appearance 
only  or  in  her  constitution.  The  benevolent  affec- 
tions which  are  the  philosopher's  great  boast,  and 
which  are  almost  his  only  hope,  the  Christian 
ascribes  to  the  constitution,  which  is  the  result  of 
divine  wisdom,  and  entitled  to  tlie^  rank  of  moral 
worth,  no  more  in  man  than  in  brute,  in  whose  na- 
ture they  are  found  as  far  as  they  are  necessary  for 
the  preservation  of  the  individual  and  the  species. 
What  the  philosopher  considers  as  slight  failing's  or 
frailties,  the  result  of  excusable  imperfection,  the 
Christian  condemns  as  manifesting  enmity  to  God, 
He  sees  that  in  him,  that  is  in  his  iiesh,  or  as  he 
is  born,  there  is  no  good  thing. 

How  much  the  light  of  the  Christian  peasant 
with  respect  to  Providence,  and  the  divine  govern- 
ment, exceeds  that  of  the  philosopher,  may  be  seen 
in  an  instant  from  their  observations  on  a  newspaper. 
The  former  s^^eaks  like  one  admitted  to  the  council 
of  his  heavenly  sovereign ;  the  other  speaks  as  if 
there  were  no  God,  or  no  control  of  Providence. 
Where  the  one  finds  all  things  dark,  unaccountable 
and  forbidding,  the  other  finds  all  things  clear  and 
consolatory.  While  the  man  of  wisdom  hides  his 
head,  like  a  child  in  a  thunderstorm,  the  man  of 
God  smiles  when  he  hears  the  terrible  voice  of  his 
great  Creator.  In  short,  the  Christian  sees  every- 
thing around  hhn  with  so  much  more  clearness  and 


322  MAKING    V7ISE   THE    SliU^LE. 

accuracy,  that  he  is  like  a  man  with  an  additional 
sense.  A  great  philosopher  ooser^es,  that  to  com- 
prehend time  and  space,  the  Imman  mind  perhaps 
wants  an  additional  faculty.  To  behold  the  char- 
acter of  God  and  of  man,  the  human  mind  wants 
the  light  of  heaven.  May  the  Lord  open  the  heart 
of  those  deluded  men,  to  attend  to  the  things  spoken 
hy  the  Apostles,  instead  of  their  ovrn  vain  specu- 
lations. 

The  cultivation  of  mind,  conferred  by  the  know- 
ledge of  the  truth,  is  seen  in  a  striking  point  of 
view,  in  the  precision  and  facility  with  v/hicli 
many  illiterate  men  speak  on  subjects,  on  which 
even  those  who  have  employed  all  their  lives  in 
schools  and  studies  camiot  speak,  without  commit- 
ting everything  to  memory.  This  is  so  observable, 
that  many  who  are  enemies  to  the  Gospel,  cannot 
but  wonder  while  they  revile. 

It  has  been  often  said,  that  it  is  necessary  for 
j)hilosophy  to  go  before,  as  the  harbinger  of  Ciiris- 
tianity,  that  the  minds  of  men  may  be  civilized 
before  they  be  Chistianized.  How  unfounded  this 
opinion  is,  no  Christian  needs  to  be  instructed.  Its 
fallacy  may  appear  even  to  blindness  itself.  Who 
were  the  bitterest  enemies  of  the  truth  in  the  days 
of  the  Apostles  ? — the  philoso23hers,  next  to  tlie 
religious  zealots.  Fanaticism  expresses  her  rage 
by  the  paroxisms  of  madness.  Philosophy  attempts 
to  laugh  the  Gospel  out  of  the  world,  and  scowl  her 


MAKING    WISE   THE    SIMPLE.  323 

from  the  earth  by  the  supercilious  "brovv^  of  cool 
contempt.  Instead  of  taking  the  Apostle  by  the 
hand  at  Athens,  and  introducing  him  to  the  favora- 
ble reception  of  the  people,  both  Stoics  and  Epicu- 
reans encountered  him.  Come,  said  the  haughty 
wise  men,  let  us  hear  what  these  babblers  have  to 
say.  Tlie  Gospel,  so  far  from  finding  a  friend  in 
philosophy,  meets  her  as  an  enemy,  and  treats  her 
as  an  impious  seducer  of  men  to  the  worship  of  a 
false  god.  She  needs  not  her  services  ;  she  fears 
not  her  attacks.  Though  the  Gospel  is  the  power 
of  God^  to  the  salvation  of  the  philosopher,  as  well 
as  the  vulgar,  it  is  an  awful  truth,  that  not  many 
of  the  v>dse  men  of  this  world  are  enlightened  by  it. 
The  wisdom  and  sovereignty  of  God  have  left  the 
schools  of  philosophy,  and  seats  of  learning  gene- 
rally, in  the  possession  of  His  enemies,  while  He  has 
chosen  the  foolish  things  of  this  world  to  confound 
the  wise.  This  is  a  fact  obvious  to  every  Christian 
that  is  at  all  conversant  with  the  world.  Yfhat 
reason  can  ^YQ  assign  for  this  ?  Shall  V\'e  say  that 
the  Gospel  is  not  able  to  change  the  philosopher  I 
Shall  we  ascribe  it  to  the  weakness  of  the  Gospel, 
or  to  the  wickedness  of  the  philoso^^her  ?  To 
neither.     We  reply  wdth  Jesus,  &c. 


SOLUTION  OF  THE  GREAT  PABADOX. 


Exodus  xxxiv.  6,  7. 


When  Jehovah  declared  His  character  to  Moses, 
He  proclaimed  "  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful 
and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in  good- 
ness and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiv- 
ing iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin,  and  that  vv^ill 
by  no  means  clear  the  guilty."  These  words  are 
well  known  and  often  repeated  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  repenting  sinners ;  but  they  are  very  gene- 
rally misunderstood.  Upon  first  sight  they  appear 
a  paradox,  and  few  venture  to  quote  them  without 
some  qualifying  epithet  to  reconcile  the  apparent 
contradiction.  How  is  it  that  the  different  parts 
of  this  seemingly  inconsistent  character  can  be 
viewed  in  harmony  ?  K  God  clears  not  the  guilty, 
how  does  He  forgive  iniquity?  K  He  forgives 
iniquity,  must  He  not  clear  the  guilty  ?  "Which  of 
these  attributes  shall  we  limit  or  modify  to  make  it 
consist  with  the  other  ?    Shall  we  lower  the  claims 


326  THE    GliEAT    PAEADOX. 

of  both,  and  find  a  nnion  by  a  compromise  ?  Let 
lis  try  tlie  first.  It  is  said  that  Jehovali  clears  not 
the  guilty.  Is'ow,  as  all  men  are  more  or  less 
guilty,  consequently,  if  we  should  imderstand  the 
word  in  a  strict  sense,  no  one  could  be  saved. 
What  if  we  should  suppose  that  the  word  guilty 
means  those  who  are  egregiously  guilty.  The 
meaning,  then,  will  be  a  very  comfortable  one  for 
the  bulk  of  mankind,  who,  though  they  cannot 
plead  entu*e  innocence,  are  in  their  own  eyes  far 
from  enormity  of  transgression.  It  will  import 
that  though  God  will  forgive  iniquity  to  a  certam 
extent,  this  is  not  to  be  understood  as  an  encourage- 
ment for  heinous  sms.  People  of  tolerably  good 
moral  conduct  have  no  reason  to  fear  on  account  of 
a  few  slips ;  but  let  not  adulterers,  murderers,  and 
reprobates  of  that  descrij)tion,  dare  to  shelter  them- 
selves imder  the  wings  of  divine  mercy.  This 
seems  to  agree  very  well  with  the  hopes  of  many, 
whose  language  intimates  that  they  ex]3ect  this 
sort  of  leniency  from  God.  He  is  not  very  exact  in 
counting  the  sins  of  men.  He  marks  no  little  sins  ; 
if  they  can  answer  for  one  in  a  thousand  of  their 
transgressions,  they  are  not  far  astray. 

Aye,  but  there  is  one  thing  spoils  this  comfortable 
scheme  of  divinity.  Like  Des  Cartes'  world,  it  is 
the  invention  of  human  wisdom,  not  the  plan  of 
Jehovah.  It  looks  admirably  weU  in  theory,  but 
if  we  brmg  it  to  the  test  of  truth,  it  is  annihilated 


•iili:    GKEAT    PAY.XDOX. 


327 


by  a  toucli.  Ginlty  cannot  mean  merely  guilty  in  ■ 
excess,  but  must  apply  to  every  degi-ee  of  guilt. 
AVhatever  be  tlio  nature  or  magnitude  of  the  crime 
with  which  a  criminal  is  charged,  if  it  is  proved, 
he  is  found  guihy.  Punishment  is  indeed  propor- 
tioned to  guilt ;  but  a  criminal  is  brought  in  and 
sentenced  as  guilty,  as  well  for  petty  larceny  as  for 
murder  or  high  treason.  ^  The  word  guilty,  then, 
must  apply  to  every  sin,  and  to  every  degree  of 

bin. 

Since  the  term  guilty  is  so  very  stubborn  as  not 
to  bend  to  our  system,  what  if  we  should  try  the 
effect  of  some  exi^lanatory  epithet?     Instead  of 
gidlti/,  let  us  suppose  the  phrase  to  be  impemt€7iUy 
guilty,  and  we  will  have  a  meaning  admurably  to 
our  purpose.     In  confirmation  of  this  explanation, 
besides  the  invincible  necessity  of  the  thing  itself, 
we  have  then  the  authority  of  almost  all  divines.  ' 
This  description  of  the  divine  character  is  scarcely 
ever  heard  from  the  pulpit  in  any  other  sense.     To 
repeat  the  passage  ^Wthout  supplying  this  necessary 
modification,  might  frighten  sinners  too  much,  and 
drive  them  to  despair.     For  if  God  does  not  clear 
{hQ  guilty,  what  comes  of  sinners  ?     The  admirable 
moral  tendency  of  this  explanation  is  also  a  very 
strong   recommendation;   while   it  leaves  hope  to 
poor  penitents  who  have  abandoned  their  sins,  and 
who,  though  not  positively  virtuous,  are  doing  all 
tliev  can  by  their  prayers  and  tears  to  supply  the 


328  THE    OIIEAT    PAl^ADOX. 

deficiency.  This  view  cannot  countenance  sin,  be- 
cause it  gives  no  hope  to  the  sinner  till  he  finds 
himself  a  penitent.  It  gives  no  unnecessary  dis- 
couragement to  sinners,  because  there  is  mercy 
enough  for  them,  if  they  are  only  willing  to  quit 
theii-  sins.  Sm-ely,  then,  we  have  at  last  hit  upon 
the  true  theory  that  will  reconcile  all  inconsis- 
tencies and  avoid  all  extremes. 

The  whole  fabric  is  not  only  proportionable,  but 
strong  in  every  part  but  the  foundation ;  but  as 
that  happens  to  be  entirely  on  a  runnuag  sand, 
it  will  tumble  as  soon  as  assailed  by  wind  and 
water.  Were  the  word  riwpenitently  to  be  re- 
cognised by  the  Scriptures,  nothing  could  over- 
turn our  system.  But  the  misfortune  is,  the  autho- 
rity of  God  is  opposed  to  that  of  the  divines, 
and  our  fair  scheme,  with  all  its  advantages,  van- 
ishes into  air.  We  have  no  more  warrant  to 
say  iiwpenitently  guilty,  than  we  have  to  say  inno- 
cently guilty. 

K  neither  of  the  opposite  parts  of  their  charac- 
ter will  bend  so  as  to  unite  with  the  other,  we 
might  try  to  meet  them  by  obliging  both  to  give 
a  little.  A  small  concession  of  the  claims  on 
each  side  would  make  peace.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  in  this  way  we  might  form  a  very  pretty 
theory;  but  as  it  would  be  subject  to  the  same 
unfortmiate  objections,  we  shall  spare  ourselves 
the  trouble. 


THE    GREAT    PAIl.iX)OX.  329 

Since  ^,ve  can  make  nothing  of  this  passage  by 
onr  own  wisdom,  let  ns  try  to  exhibit  it  in  the 
liglit  of  revelation.  Let  ns  see  if  there  is  not  a 
view  in  which  the  opposite  parts  of  this  character 
are  perfectly  reconcilable  with  each  other.  If  tlie 
word  of  God  shows  ns  how^  God  can  pardon  sin 
W' ithonr  clearing  the  guilty,  then  -  there  is  a  sm-e 
refiige  for  sinners  ;  then  the  wisdom  of  God  will 
apT)ear  as  much  superior  to  the  wisdom  of  men,  as 
heaven  is  higher  than  the  earth. 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  God  not  only  par- 
dons siimers,  but  even  the  chief  of  sinners.  The 
plan  by  w^hich  he  effected  thi^  without  clearing  the 
guilty,  is  manifested  in  the  atonement  of  His  son 
Jesus  Christ.  He  ii:aYe  His  son  a  sacrifice  and 
a  ransom,  that  he  might  sufler  the  punishment  of 
sin,  and  that  whoever  believeth  in  him  may  not 
perish  but  have  everlasting  life.  Jesus  Christ  took 
on  him  the  sins  of  his  people,  and  in  suffering 
under  them,  was  esteemed  virtually  guilty.  The 
sins,  therefore,  of  believers  have  been  atoned  for  to 
the  utmost  extent  of  their  desert.  When  Jesus 
became  the  sinner's  surity  in  the  eye  of  law,  those 
for  whom  he  suffered  are  innocent.  In  pardoning 
them,  God  does  not  clear  the  guilty.  As  guilty, 
they  have  been  punished  in  the  death  of  their 
substitute.  When  their  guilt  has  been  purged 
away,  they  must,  of  necessity,  be  declared  clear. 
Whoever,   therefore,  has   had  his  sins  atoned  for 


330  THE   GEE  AT   P^VEADOX. 

ill  the  death  of  Christ,  wiU  stand  before  the  tri- 
bunal of  God  as  spotless  as  an  angel.  Now,  God 
declares  to  the  whole  world,  that  whoever  be- 
lieveth  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Chi'ist  shall  be  saved. 
As  all  who  have  their  sins  atoned  for  by  Christ 
shall  be  cleared  on  the  day  of  judgment,  so  all 
who  believe,  and  they  only,  are  declared  to  have 
their  sins  thus  canceled.  Faith  in  the  divine  mes- 
sage, that  proclaims  Jesus  as  coming  into  the 
world  to  die  for  the  guilty,  is  the  medium  through 
which  sinners  become  interested  in  his  atone- 
ment. 

Is  not  this  plan  of  salvation  truly  divine  ? 
Could  ever  such  a  way  of  harmonizing  the  divine 
attributes  in  saving  the  guilty  have  occurred  to  the 
mind  of  man  ?  Sinners,  abandon  every  refuge  of 
lies,  invented  by  delusion  and  forced  on  the  word 
of  God  by  constraint.  Believe  the  truth,  and  ye 
shall  be  pardoned  in  such  a  way  as  will  clear  you. 
Submit  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  All  perversions 
of  the  word  of  God  will  be  found  at  last  to  be 
refuges  of  lies.  'No  scheme  of  salvation  ever  in- 
vented by  men,  can  show  the  consistency  of  the 
divine  character.  In  the  death  of  Jesus  alone  can 
we  find  a  plan  that  will  consist  with  the  whole 
word  of  God.  E"otwithstanding  the  death  of 
Christ,  it  still  remains  true  that  God  does  not 
clear  the  guilty.  AU  whose  sins  are  not  atoned 
for  in  the  death   of  Christ   must   suffer   the .  full 


THE   GREAT   PAJRADOX.  331 

reti'ibution  of  tlieir  demerit.  Let  none  dream 
of  mercy  and  of  escaping  through  Christ,  while 
thej  continue  to  neglect  the  Gospel.  The  same 
authority  that  declares,  that  whosoever  believeth 
shall  be  saved,  declares  also,  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned. 


«- 


THE  SCHEME  OF  SALTATION, 

BY  LAW  AND  GRACE, 

lEEECONCILABLE   VnTJl   ITSELF. 


Pekhaps  there  never  "was  a>  man  owning  the 
divhie  existence,  so  full  of  the  oj^inion  of  human 
merit,  as  not  in  some  respect  to  have  recourse  to 
the  grace  of  God.  Even  Tindal,  whose  god  is  more 
limited  in  his  powers  than  an '  earthly  father  or 
master,  speaks  of  a  gracious  god.  They  who  deny 
tlie  atonement  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  speak  notwithstanding,  of  grace 
and  mercy.  On  the  other  hand,  few  of  the  mnlti- 
tudes  who  speak  of  salvation  by  grace,  hold  the 
doctrine  in  such  a  view  as  to  exclude  law  and 
merit.  Tlie  scheme  of  salvation  which  commands 
the  approbation  of  the  greatest  i:>art  of  what  is 
calle^d  the  Christian  world,  is  that  which  represents 
an  interest  in  the  atonement  to  he  procured  by  the 
condition  of  good  works.  In  opposition  to  all  these, 
the  Apostles  declare  salvation  to  be  pin-ely  of  grace, 


■-» 


334  LAW    AND   GKACE. 

the  free  gift  of  God  tlirougli  Jesus  Christ.  The 
Apostle  Paul  not  only  asserts  salvation  by  grace, 
and  not  by  human  merit,  but  declares  that  salva- 
tion by  grace  and  works,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
"  And,  if  by  grace,  then  is  it  no  more  of  works, 
otherwise,  grace  is  no  more  grace.  But  if  it  be  of 
works,  then  is  it  no  more  grace ;  otherwise,  work 
is  no  more  work."' — Rom.  xi.  6.  "  For  if  the  inheri- 
tance be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more  of  promise ;  but 
God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise." — Gal.  iii.  18. 
This  is  so  obvious  a  dictate  of  common  sense,  that 
it  is  strange  to  find  any  professing  to  believe  the 
Scriptures,  and  mixing  these  incongruous  elements. 
Yet,  these  things  thought  so  inconsistent  by  the 
Apostle,  have  been  found  perfectly  reconcilable 
by  others ;  and  what  Paul  looks  upon  as  a  contra- 
diction, they  have  considered  as  a  scheme,  beauti- 
fully harmonizing  the  attributes  of  God,  and  the 
moral  agency  of  mankind.  God  is  just  and  gra- 
cious in  the  atonement,  while  man  is  entitled  to 
the  benefit  of  this  and  the  reward  of  eternal  life, 
by  his  repentance  and  new  obedience.  This  is  the 
darling  scheme  of  the  wise  and  the  unwise.  The 
bold  conclusions  of  the  Socinian  and  Arian  are  em- 
braced only  by  a  few  hasty  speculatists.  They  are 
never  likely  to  be  the  refuge  of  the  generality  of 
mankind. 

But  let  us  see  how  the  admirers  of  this  popular 
scheme  reconcile  what  Paul  looked  upon  as  a  con- 


LAW    AiS^D    GKACE.  336 

tradiction.  If  it  is  obvious  to  coimnou  sense,  that 
grace  and  merit  are  irreconcilable,  Mow  can  those 
who  have  not  only  common  sense,  but  many  that 
have  mnch  good  sense  and  learning,  be  blind  to 
the  contradiction?  It  seems  to  me,  that  they  hide 
the  inconsistency  from  themselves,  by  viewing  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  merit  of  man,  as  not  respect- 
ing the  same  things.  Were  it  not  for  something 
of  this  nature,  it  would  be  impossible  to  attempt  to 
reconcile  things  palpably  irreconcilable.  The  same 
thing  that  is  given  purely  of  favor,  camiot  also  be 
given  as  wages  for  work.  But  they  contrive  to 
appropriate  the  grace  of  God  to  one  thing,  and  the 
merit  of  man  to  another.  The  former  respects  the 
giving  of  Christ  as  a  ransom  for  siimers ;  the  lat- 
ter respects  the  terms  of  obtaining  an  interest  in 
this  ransom.  The  atonement  is  alL  of  grace,  but 
human  efforts  must  obtain  an  interest  in  that  work. 
This  surely  is  the  sj)ii'it  of  their  doctrine,  who  speak 
of  the  grace  of  God  in  salvation,  yet  of  man's  being 
pardoned  through  the  atonement  for  his  rej^ent- 
ance,  revv-arded  for  his  sincere  obedience.  Tlie 
grace  of  God  consists  not  in  giving  all  freely 
through  Christ,  but  in  making  salvation  possible 
through  him,  which  was  otherwise  impossible,  in 
giving  a  new  and  an  easier  covenant,  which  re- 
quires not  perfect  but  sincere  obedience.  This 
they  caU  a  milder  law,  the  Gospel  covenant,  &c, 
Li  this  view,  also,  some  speak  of  faith  itself,  as  if 


336  *  LAW    A^T)   OKACE. 

God,  on  accoiiiit  of  the  excellent  disposition  wliicii 
it  is  supposed  to  manifest,  accepts  it  in  lieu  of  sin- 
lees  obedience  to  his  law.  They  seem  to  lia^-e 
the  same  view  of  God's  grace,  as  thev  would 
of  that  of  a  rich  man,  who,  to  encom'age  indus- 
try amons:  the  poor,  would  ens-asre  to  o-ive  them 
wages,  in  value  much  above  their  work.  AViiile 
others  give  but  a  shilling  a  day,  he  gives  live. 
He  is  gracious,  then,  in  giving  the  poor  so  good 
a  baro-ain ;  thev  merit  their  v^-ap-es,  because  tliev 
liavQ  performed  the  work.  But  it  is  obvious 
that  when  the  Scriptures  speak  of  God's  grace,  and 
the  opposition  of  grace  and  works,  tliey  refer  to 
the  whole  scheme  of  salvation,  and  oppose  grace  to 
work  with  respect  to  the  sam.e  points.  In  Gal.  iii. 
18,  where  Paul  asserts  the  inconsistency  ol  law  and 
promise,  he  is  speaking  against  the  doctrine  of  tliose 
who  made  the  observance  of  law  necessary  to  sal  va- 
lion,  as  well  as  faith  in  the  death  of  Christ.  In 
liom.  xi.  6,  it  is  not  only  the  salvation  of  sinners 
that  is  represented  as  of  grace,  but  the  election  of 
them  as  of  grace.  The  heirs  of  life  are  represented 
as  chosen,  not  on  account  of  works  tliat  they  should 
do,  but  altogether  out  of  grace.  If  so,  works  of  no 
Idnd  can  ever  be  represented  consistently  with 
Scriptm-c  as  conditions  of  salvation.  But  all  the. 
ingenuity  of  all  the  learned  advocates  of  this  hete- 
rogeneous scheme,  has  never  been  able  either  to 
harmonize   it  vrith   the   Scriptures,  or  even  witJi 


LAW   AND   GRACE.  337 

iteelf.  K  God  requires  any  conditions  on  the  part 
of  sinners,  it  is  imj)06sible  that  salvation  is  of  grace. 
However  inconsiderable  and  easy  such  conditions 
may  be,  however  short  of  the  value  of  what  is 
gained,  still,  when  they  are  ^erformed^  they  are 
work,  and  therefore  contrary  to  grace.  AVhen 
they  have  been  performed,  they  give  ground  to 
glory.  K  in  themselves  they  are  of  no  value,  then 
they  who  have  them  not,  are  not  mferior  in  moral 
worth  to  those  who  possess  them ;  consequently 
they  are  of  no  value.  If,  though  of  no  value  in 
themselves,  they  are  valuable,  as  commanded  by 
God,  then  they  who  possess  them,  ofler  some  value 
to  God  for  their  salvation.  But  if  these  conditions 
are  valuable  in  themselves,  as  is  generally  supposed 
by  the  advocates  of  this  scheme,  then,  according  to 
their  value,  do  they  afford  God  a  price  for  what  he 
gives.  If  faith,  repentance,  sincere  obedience,  are 
the  work  of  man,  or  the  productions  of  man's  own 
efforts,  then  his  salvation  is  the  fruit  of  his  own 
labor.  If  one  perishes,  because  he  does  not  comply 
with  these  terms,  and  another  is  saved  on  account 
of  them,  then  salvation  is  not  of  grace,  but  by 
human  merit.  The  man  who  is  saved  may  glory 
in  the  success  of  his  efforts.  lie  cannot  be  said  to 
be  saved  by  grace.  He  has  given  value  for  what 
he  has  received  ;  and  although  it  is  not  fiill  value, 
it  is  all  that  is  thought  reasonable  in  his  banki'upt 
circumstances  to  require  of  him.     God  then  still 


338  LAW   A^D   GRACE. 

demands  of  Kim  all  tlie  debt  whicli  lie  is  able  to  pay. 
Is  this  a  salvation  of  grace  ?  K  faith,  repentance, 
sincere  obedience,  are  spoken  of  as  the  gift  of  God, 
then  it  is  absnrd  in  that  view  of  them,  to  consider 
them  as  conditions  on  the  part  of  man.  In  this 
view,  the  man  who  receives  them  has  no  more 
merit  than  the  man  who  receives  them  not.  K 
through  faith ;  repentance,  and  sincere  obedience, 
are  the  gift  of  God,  but  are  given  to  one  rather 
than  another,  on  account  of  complying  with  some 
previous  conditions,  it  is  only  removing  merit  a 
little  farther  back,  and  salvation  is  the  reward  of 
these  previous  conditions.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it 
can  be  said  that  salvation  is  of  grace,  that  eternal 
life  is  the  gift  of  God,  then  it  is  absurd  and  contra- 
dictory to  suj)pose  that  the  performance  of  any 
thing  is  required  on  the  part  of  man.  It  cannot  be 
grace  that  requires — that  will  not  give  without 
something  in  return.  It  cannot  be  a  o^ift  that 
requii'es  a  purchase  before  it  is  communicated. 
JSTo  conditions  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  can  exist 
in  a  free  salvation.  It  is  of  faith  that  it  might  be 
by  grace.  The  pride  of  man  is  humbled  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  cross.  The  virtuous  sage  is  able  to 
oifer  to  God,  for  his  salvation,  nothing  more  than 
the  abandoned  profligate.  If  they  believe  the  Gos- 
pel, they  both  alike  are  changed  by  its  power ; 
they  repent,  are  bom  again,  and  perform  good 
works. 


THE 


MAHOMETAN  FAST  OF  MAMAZAN. 


Maott  persons  in  their  eagerness  to  support  ortho- 
doxy as  a  system,  speak  of  salvation  by  grace  and 
faith  in  such  a  manner  as  to  undervakie  holiness 
and  life  devoted  to  God.  But  there  is  no  ground 
for  this  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  same  Gospel 
that  declares  salvation  to  be  freely  by  the  grace  of 
God  through  faith  m  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  asserts, 
in  the  strongest  terms,  that  smners  are  justified  by 
the  righteousness  of  the  Saviour  imputed  to  them  on 
then-  believing  in  him,  without  any  respect  to  works 
^f  law,  also  assures  us  that  without  holiness,  no 
man  shall  see  God ;  that  believers  are  cleansed  by 
the  blood  of  atonement;  that  their  hearts  are 
pm-ified  by  faith,  which  works  by  love,  and  over-  ■ 
cometh  the  world ;  and  that  the  grace  that  brings 
salvation  to  all  men,  teaches  those  who  receive  it, 
that  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  they 


340  FAST   OF   EHAMAZAlf. 

should  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly,  in  this 
present  world.  Any  fear  that  the  doctrine  of  grace 
will  suffer  from  the  most  strenuous  inculcation  of 
good  works  on  a  Scriptural  foundation,  betrays  an 
inadequate  and  greatly  defective  acquaintance  with 
divine  truth,  and  any  tampering  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  order  to  silence  their  testimony  in  favor 
of  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  as  absolutely  neces- 
sary in  the  Christian,  is  a  perversion  and  forgery 
with  respect  to  the  word  of  God.  Holiness  is  as 
necessary  as  faith,  but  it  is  necessary  for  a  different 
purpose.  When  these  purposes  are  clearly  dis- 
cerned, there  will  aj)pear  no  clashing  between  faith 
and  works,  between  justification  by  grace  through 
the  atonement,  and  the  fruits  of  this  in  righteous- 
ness and  holiness. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  who,  not  dis- 
criminating between  the  holiness  which  is  produced 
by  the  belief  of  the  truth,  and  that  counterfeit  piety 
which  is  the  oflfepring  of  ignorance  and  superstition, 
think  favorably  of  all  who  are  greatly  devoted  to 
external  acts  of  religion.  The  man  who  prays, 
must  in  theii*  estimation,  be  a  man  in  favor  with 
God,  without  considering  that  he  may  be  praying, 
not  like  Paul  after  his  conversion,  but  like  the 
Pharisee  for  ostentation,  or  as  a  legal  price  for  his 
salvation.  If  he  fasts,  however  superstitious  may 
be  his  views  of  religion,  it  is  ho^^ed  that  God  ^vill 
accept  60  much  piety,  though  it  be  in  ignorance. 


FAST   OF   KHA^VIAZAN.  341 

If  he  afflicts  liimself,  and  does  mauy  things  with  a 
view  to  please  God,  and  appease  His  wrath,  it  is 
hard  to  think,  as  appears  to  them,  that  it  will  be 
utterly  without  advantage  to  him  in  the  final  day 
of  reckoning.  A  pillar  saint  may  to  them  be  an 
object  of  contempt,  but  thej  will  not  be  so  unchari- 
table as  to  suppose  that  his  austerities  will  not  be 
rewarded,  or  at  least  graciously  accepted  in  the 
judgment.  These  observations  forcibly  strike  us  in 
reading  the  following  account  of  the  austerities  with 
which  the  Mahometans  observe  their  fast  Ehamazan. 

If  persons  who  set  so  high  a  value  on  merely 
external  acts  of  devotion  and  religious  austerities 
under  the  Christian  name,  v,"Ould  turn  theii*  eyes 
to  the  ancient  nations  who  professed  the  grossest 
idolatries,  and  modern  nations,  which  are  either 
Pagan,  or  Mahometan,  they  will  find  examples  of 
devotedness  and  superstitious  piety,  which  go  far 
beyond  those  that,  under  the  Christian  name,  appear 
to  them  to  be  either  meritorious,  or  in  some  way 
giving  a  claim  to  divine  favor.  The  austerities  of 
heathenism  and  of  false  religion,  have  infinitely 
surpassed  the  severity  of  Christian  superstitions. 

The  following  article  is  extracted  from  a  news- 
paper : 

THE    EHAMAZAN. 

"  Constantinople,  Decemher  11. 
'•  The   continuance  of  the   Rhamazan  keeps  everything  con- 
iiev/ted  with  pontics  in  the  most  perfect  state  of  stagnation  at 


342  FAST   OF   KHAMAZAN. 

Constantinople ;  fasting,  praying,  promenading  all  day,  and  feast- 
ing, and  making  merry  all  night,  is  all  that  is  now  going  on ;  and 
everything  except  such  daUy  business  as  cannot  be  interrupted,  is 
put  off  till  the  approaching  Bairam.  The  painfully  rigid  obser- 
vance which  Mahometans  pay  to  the  keeping  of  the  fast  of  Rhama- 
zan,  thi'oughout  the  whole  month,  is  most  remarkable,  and  forms  a 
striking  contrast  to  the  so  misnamed  fasts  in  CathoHc  countries. 
Here  no  exception  is  made  in  favor  of  a  fine  piece  of  fish,  or  a 
dainty  omelette,  imder  the  plea  of  its  not  beuag  fiesh ;  nor  are  any 
discussions  entered  into  as  to  what  may  be  eaten  or  what  may 
not ;  the  term  fast,  or  Islam,  means  total  abstinence ;  and  from  the 
time  the  first  rays  of  sun  appear  above  the  horizon,  till  the  Murz- 
zim  fi-om  the  minaret  proclauns  the  hour  of  sunset  prayer,  no  mor- 
sel of  food  of  any  kind  passes  the  lips  of  the  rigid  Mosleim ;  and 
even  when  the  Ehamazau  falls  in  the  hottest  months  of  summer, 
which  it  sometimes  does,  (the  lunar  calender  used  by  the  Ai'abians, 
bringing  it  of  course  through  all  the  seasons  every  thirty-three 
years.)  the  hardy  Homal  in  the  streets,  and  the  Caiquegi  at  his 
oars,  toUs  through  the  labors  of  the  day,  exposed  for  so  many 
hours  to  the  broiling  sun,  without  permitting  themselves  even  a 
drop  of  water,  to  moisten  their  parchmg  lips.  This,  however,  is 
not  all,  for  incredible  as  it  may  appear,  it  is  no  less  a  fact,  that 
to  some  of  the  more  rigid  Mussulmans,  even  the  hours  of  sunset 
gcarce  can  be  said  to  bring  a  breaking  of  the  fast,  since  during  the 
night,  when  it  is  permitted  to  eat,  they  scarce  take  what  is  suffi- 
cient to  support  natm'o.  Durmg  the  month  Rhamazan,  which  thus 
converts  night  into  day,  the  natm*e  and  habits  of  the  Turk  may  be 
said  to  become  entirely  changed.  Instead  of  rising  as  usual,  with 
the  first  beams  of  the  morning,  and  rething  to  rest  again  at  a  very 
early  hour,  he  very  rarely  quits  his  couch  till  mid-day,  and  de- 
prived even  of  the  pleasure  of  his  pipe,  thus  endeavors  by  sleep  to 
get  through  his  weary  hours  of  fast.  All  except  those  who  are 
reaUy  obhged  to  work,  lay  aside  business  of  every  kmd,  and  about 
three  of  the  day,  all  the  gay  world  of  Stamboul,  not  excepting  the 
Sultan  himself,  may  be  seen  promenading  in  the  large  open  space 
in  front  of  the  Seraskier  Pacha's,    The  Sultan,  who  is  incog,  on 


FAST    OF    RHA3IAZA:Sr.  34:3 

these  occasions,  passes  almost  unheeded  tlixough  the  crowd,  and 
when  he  has  fatigued  himself  with  walking  or  riding,  he  seats  hmi- 
self  in  the  shop  of  a  tobacconist  near  the  end  of  the  promenade, 
from  whence  he  amuses  himself  in  contemplating  the  gay  scene 
before  him.  In  the  evening,  the  mosques  and  houses  are  all  par- 
tiaUy  illuminated-the  streets  are  again  fiUed,  and  every  cahre  is 
crowded  with  smokers,  enjoying  the  so-long  forbidden  chibouque 
and  amusing  themselves  with  story  telhng,  magic  lanterns,  &c., 
till  morning's  dawn  agam  obhges  them  to  commence  their  ngorous 
abstinence.  Thus  passes  the  Rhamazan  at  Constantinople,  tiU  the 
part  of  the  Baham  which  follows  agaiji,  restores  things  to  then- 
ordinary  course." 


THE  GENERAL  RESURRECTION. 


"  Marvel  not  at  this :  for  the  horn'  is  coming,  m  the  which  all  that 
are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  His  voice,  and  shall  come  fonh ; 
they  that  hath  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  hfe ;  and  they 
that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  the  resurrection  of  damnation." — 
John  V.  28,  29. 

The  general  resurrection  is  among  tlie  most 
awful  and  interesting  scenes  that  can  occuj)y  tlie 
contemplation  of  man.  According  as  it  is  viewed 
by  hope,  or  by  fear,  it  is  calculated  to  yield  tlie 
most  transporting  joy,  or  the  m.ost  pungent  pain. 
If  we  understand  the  way  in  which  God  is  just, 
and  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly ;  if  w^e  know  the 
way  in  which  a  guilty  creature  may  approach 
with  confidence,  the  tribunal  of  the  God  of  the 
w^hole  earth;  if  we  have  a  well-founded  hope  of 
enjoying  the  kingdom  prepared  for  the  ransomed 
of  the  Lord,  no  subject  can  yield  sweeter  consola- 
tion to  the  mind,  than  the  prospect  of  rising  from 
the  ruins  of  mortahty.    ]^ature  revolts  against  the 


34:6  THE   KESrHEEOTIOX. 

tlioiiglit  of  dissoliitioii ;  it  is  witli  reluctance  that 
tlie  soul  is  separated  from  its  dearest  com23anioii ; 
and  without  abhorrence  we  cannot  contemplate  the 
corruption  and  loathsomeness  of  the  grave.  ISTo- 
thing  but  the  hope  of  hiiallv  trimnphing  over  death, 
can  make  the  prospect  of  dissolution,  and  the  gloom 
of  the  mansions  of  the  dead,  agreeable,  or  even 
tolerable,  to  a  thinking  mind.  To  view  death  as 
the  debt  of  nature,  and  the  terms  on  which  we 
received  existence,  can  yield  no  real,  no  substantial 
consolation  to  a  dying  man.  But  how  grateful  to 
the  mind,  to  turn  from  viewing  the  rottenness  of 
the  grave,  and  the  worms  that  are  about  to  devour 
the  body,  to  the  day  when  death  shall  be  swallowed 
uj)  in  victory ;  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put 
on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on 
immortality  I 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  to  those  who  are  ignorant 
of  God,  whose  consciences  testify  against  them  as 
evil  doers,  how  insupportable  is  the  view  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead?  'No  longer  shall  the 
graves  be  able  to  hide  their  bodies.  These  must 
awake  from  the  rest  of  death,  to  suffer  the  punish- 
ment of  ti-ansgression.  Tliey  shall  live,  only  to 
endure  merited  ^i-ath.  They  may  nozo  put  the 
evil  day  far  from  them,  but  it  will  at  last  overtake 
them  as  travail  doth  a  woman  with  child.  The 
crimes  which  they  may  have  concealed  from  men, 
will  now  meet  them  in  all  their  guilt ;  they  will  be 


THE   KESUERECTIOK. 


347 


unable  to  hide  tliemselves  or  tlieir  deeds  from  the 
eye  of  Him  who  shall  judge  tlie  living  and  the 
dead. 

Yet  such  is  the  blindness  of  the  human  mind, 
that  men  often  succeed  in  turning  away  their  eyes 
from   beholding   that   awful   scene.     The    various 
-  occupations  and  incidents  of  life  so  engross  them, 
that  it  is  seldom  thoughts  of  so  gloomy  and  disa- 
greeable a  nature  are  allowed  to  present  themselves. 
In  health  and  prosperity  men  are  carried  down  the 
streams  of  pleasm-e,  and  from  the  various  amuse- 
ments which  they  have  contrived  to  kill  time,  they 
are  secured  from  the  frequent  intrusion  of  serious 
reflections.     In  acute  distress,  or  the  bustle  of  busi- 
ness, the  present  feelings  occupy  the  mind ;  or  if 
adversity  should  force  them  to  perceive  the  vanity 
of  earthly  things,  and  obtrude  eternity  upon  their 
thoughts,  they  "find  relief  in  the  delusions  of  false 
hope,  and  false  views  of  their  own  situation  and 
character.     All  is  not  right,  it  will  be  aclmow- 
ledged,  but  the  partiality  with  vrhich  men  are  in- 
clined to  view  their  own  conduct,  will  discover  some 
good   qualities   to  counterbalance  what  is   amiss, 
which,  with  their  incorrect  views  of  the  justice  and 
mercy  of  God,  soothe   them   in  the   prospect  of 
appearing  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ.     ISTo- 
thing  more  fully  evinces   the  awful   situation   of 
those  vrho  are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  than  the 
torpor  and  stupidity  of  the  human  mind  in  view 


348  THE    KESLTRRECTIOX. 

of  this  solemn  appearance  before  the  Searcher  of 
Hearts.  Were  not  men  totally  dead  in  sin,  they 
could  not  manifest  such  insensibility  and  imconcern 
about  things  of  such  infinite  importance.  While 
they  are  awake  to  espy  and  avert  the  most  distant 
temporal  danger,  and  to  secure  every  prospect  of 
temj)oral  happiness  to  themselves  and  their  latest 
posterity,  they  are  little  affected  with  that  most  ter- 
rible of  all  truths,  the  appearance  before  God,  and 
the  eternal  misery  of  the  wicked.  This  could  not 
be  so,  were  not  men  dead,  utterly  dead,  in  tres- 
passes and  sins. 

Not  only  do  many  who  profess  their  belief  in  a 
resurrection,  live  in  a  great  measure  unaffected  by 
it ;  there  are  some  who  fortify  their  hearts  against 
the  day  of  God,  by  denying  this  truth  or  making  it 
a  subject  of  ridicule.  jSTot  knomng  the  Scriptm-es 
nor  the  power  of  God,  they  raise  objections  from 
philosophical  principles,  which  at  once  tend  to  fos- 
ter theu'  pride,  and  harden  them  in  their  delusion. 
Arrogantly  pretending  to  judge  of  the  power  and 
operations  of  God,  from  their  own  narrow  views  of 
His  worlvS,  they  have  concluded  that  there  can  be 
no  resm-rection,  as  the  particles  of  the  bodies  of 
certain  individuals,  may  have  formed  part  of  innu- 
merable other  bodies.  "But  some  man  will  say, 
how  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and  with  what  body 
do  they  come  ?  Thou  fool !  that  which  thou  sowest 
is  not  quickened  except  it  die.     And  that  which 


TUE    KESUKKECTION.  349 

thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that  body  that  shall 
be,  but  bare  grain,  it  may  chance  of  wheat,  or  of 
some  other  grain.  But  God  giveth  it  a  body  as  it 
hath  pleased  Him,  and  to  every  seed  his  own 
body."— 1  Cor.  xv,  35—38. 

Xo  less  lamentable,  though  less  shocking,  is  the 
situation  of  those  who  speak  with  pleasure  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  anticipate  with  seem- 
ing delight  the  reward  which  they  expect  for  their 
works,  who  yet  are  ignorant  of  the  atonement  made, 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist,  and  have  their  hopes 
founded  on  false  views  of  God  and  of  themselves. 
The  Apostle  Paul  declares  himself  peculiarly  af- 
fected with  the  situation  of  such. — Eomans  x.  1 — 3. 
"  Brethren,  my  heart's  desire  and  j)rayer  to  God 
for  Israel  is,  that  they  might  be  saved.  For  I  bear 
them  record,  that  they  have  a  zeal  of  God,  but  not 
according  to  knowledge.  For  they,  being  ignorant 
of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about  to  establish 
their  own  righteousness,  have  not  submitted  them- 
selves unto  the  righteousness  of  God."  How 
pitiable  is  the  case  of  those,  who,  from  a  hope  of 
escaping  eternal  wrath,  and  of  obtaining  eternal 
glory,  deny  themselves  the  gratifications  of  the 
flesh  (on  which  their  whole  souls  are  nevertheless 
set),  submit  to  the  most  rigorous  and  painful  morti- 
fications, and  seem  totally  engrossed  with  zepJ  for 
God,  and  are  yet  strangers  to  the  new  and  hving 
vv'ay  to  the  Father  ! 


350  THE   EESUEEECTIOX. 

But  how  awful  is  tlie  situation  of  those,  who, 
with  seeming  transport,  resign  their  bodies  to  the 
grave,  while  they  obstinately  continue  to  reject  the 
atonement,  and  to  deny  the  Scripture-character  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ !  "What  desperate  hardness 
of  lieart,  what  blindness  and  stupidity  of  mind, 
does  this  discover  in  man !  Li  what  spiritual  dark- 
ness must  the  human  understanding  be  buried, 
when  men  can  profess  to  rejoice  in  the  life  mani- 
fested in  the  Scriptures,  while  they  atheistically 
deny  Him  who  is  the  Author  of  that  life !  The 
wretch  who  will  curse  God  and  die,  is  not  more 
blind  than  he  who,  while  he  praises  the  god  wliom 
his  own  wicked  heart  hath  formed,  manifests  deter- 
mined enmity  against  the  God  of  the  Scriptures. 

"What  inconsistencies  are  discovered  in  the  hu- 
man mind  ?  With  ardent  curiosity  men  endeavor 
to  discover  the  origin  and  early  state  of  nations ; 
and  trace  with  eager  attention  the  various  steps  of 
their  progress  from  rudeness  to  refinement,  while 
the  volume  that  contains  the  true  account  of  the 
primitive,  present,  and  future  state  of  man  lies 
neglected.  A  nation  emerging  from  barbarism  to 
civilization,  is  supposed  an  object  worthy  of  the 
most  attentive  contemplation ;  while  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  whole  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  is  a  truth 
which  possesses  little  attraction.  The  discovery  of 
an  island,  and  the  description  of  its  inhabitants, 
more  powerfully  interest  the  generality  of  mankind. 


THE   EESUERECTIOX.  351 

than  the  account  of  the  resnrrection  of  man,  and 
his  future  destiny   through  eternity. 

A  new  source  of  commerce  and  riches  seems 
more  inviting  than  the  glory  and  treasures  of  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem ;  yet  surely  in  itself,  as  a 
subject  of  mere  curiosity^  the  resurrection  of  the 
human  race  is  the  grandest  that  can  employ  the 
contemplation  of  man.  What  an  astonishing  scene, 
when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  appear  in  the  heavens, 
with  all  his  mighty  angels,  in  all  the  majesty  of  the 
God  and  Judge  of  the  earth  !  He  shouts,  and  his 
voice  reaches  to  the  ends  of  the  world,  penetrates 
into  the  depths  of  the  earth  and  of  the  sea,  and 
calls  to  life  and  judgment  the  ashes  of  the  dead. 
They  that  are  in  their  graves,  they  that  have  slept 
for  thousands  of  years  in  the  arms  of  death,  shall 
hear  his  voice  and  come  forth.  View  the  millions 
of  manhind,  that  have  lived  since  the  creation  of 
the  world,  all  rising  out  of  the  earth,  and  present- 
ing themselves  before  the  tribunal  of  God.  The 
earth  that  now  swells  with  the  dead  bodies  of  her 
children,  shall  open  to  deliver  her  charge.  The 
grave  shall  surrender  its  captives.  "What  an  inte- 
resting sight,  to  behold  all  the  myriads  of  human 
creatures,  that  the  successive  ages  of  time  have 
ushered  into  existence !  Come  forth,  ye  men  of 
renown,  ye  conquerors,  ye  men  of  glory,  who,  to 
gratify  ambition,  have  so  often  desolated  the  earth, 
and  drenched  her  with  the  blood  of  her  chikben. 


352  THE   KE.SUKKEGTION. 

Come  forth,  that  you  may  drink  the  oceans  of  blood 
that  you  have  shed  in  wantonness.  Let  the  Judge 
hear  the  grounds  of  your  quarrels,  the  cause  of 
your  cruelty.  What  avails  it  with  him,  to  allege 
the  glory  of  your  name  and  of  your  country  ? 
Shall  the  cloak  of  public  interest,  with  which  you 
have  covered  your  abominable  designs,  hide  from 
Him  the  true  motives  by  which  you  were  actuated  ? 
You  have  lived  and  died  for  glory  ;  come  now  and 
receive  from  Him,  who  is  the  God  of  glor}^,  that 
which  your  crimes  have  merited.  Instead  of  glory, 
you  shall  be  covered  with  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt. 

Ye  sons  of  pleasure,  who  lived  wanton  on  the 
earth,  whose  hearts  cheered  you  in  the  days  of  your 
youth,  and  walked  in  the  ways  of  your  hearts,  and 
in  the  sight  of  your  eyes,  now  shall  you  know  that 
for  all  these  things  God  will  bring  you  into  judg- 
ment. For  your  fornication,  your  uncleanness, 
your  inordinate  affection,  evil  concupiscence,  your 
drunkenness,  and  debauchery,  the  wrath  of  God 
Cometh  upon  you. 

Ye  servants  of  mammon,  come  forth — call  now 
to  your  god  in  whom  you  trusted  ;  let  him  deliver 
you,  seeing  you  faithfully  served  him.  "  Cry  aloud, 
for  he  is  a  god  !  either  he  is  talking,  or  he  is  pur- 
suing, or  he  is  on  a  journey,  or  per  ad  venture  he 
sleepeth,  and  must  be  awaked."  Having  in  your 
lifetime  received  your  good  thmgs,  and  despised 


THE  EESDKEECTI9N.  353 


the  heavenly  inheritance,  yon  shall  befoi-over  ex- 
cluded therefrom,  and  have  your  portion  ^-ith  the 
devil  and  his  angels. 

Ye  soher,  devout,  religious  formalists,  who  de- 
nied the   power    of  godliness,   and,   ignoi;ant  ot 
God's  righteousness,  went  ahout  to  establish  your 
own  righteousness,  how  shall  you  stand   m  the 
presence  of  Him,  whose  eyes  are  as  a  flame  ot 
fire,  and  who  looketh  on  the  heart?    lour  good 
deeds,  that  were  done  that  they  might  be  seen 
of  men,   secured   you   your   reward— your   alms 
and  your   prayers,  which   had   for   their   object 
the    (inieting    of    your    consciences,    iatallj    suc- 
ceeded;  but  when  weighed  in  the  balance,  you 
will  be  found  wanting,  for  inasmuch  as  you  diU 
it  not  to  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren 
because  they  were  so,  saith  the  Judge,  you  did 

it  not  to  me.  ^  ^    1  p         +i,„f 

How  different  the  Judgment  of  God  from  that 
of  man !    All  that  is  dignified  and  held  up  to  pub- 
lic admiration,  by  the  pen  of  the  historian,  shall  be 
covered  with  intamy  in  that  day.    The  warrior, 
the  statesman,  the  patriot,  the  philosopher,  and  the 
sao-e,   these  envied  names,  to  which  all  earthly 
honors  are  consecrated,  shall  then  yield  up  their 
all-their  triumphs.    The  name  of  the  righteous 
alone-a  name  which  now  is  held  in  contempt- 
shall  be  truly  glorious  in  that  day.     Shame  and 
confusion  of  face  shall  be  the  everlasting  portion  ot 


354  THE   EESURRECTION. 

all  who  know  not  God,  and  obey  not  the  Gospel  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Sinners,  who  have  so  often  heard  and  neglected 
the  voice  of  Jesus  speaking  in  the  Scriptures,  how 
shall  you  bear  to  hear  it,  when  it  calls  you  to  judg- 
nient  ?  When  he  spoke  in  mercy,  you  refused  to 
hear ;  you  must  now  hear  him  when  he  speaks  in 
wrath.  By  his  Gospel  he  is  now  calling  on  the 
sons  of  men,  without  exception,  to  believe  and  be 
saved.  Then  he  shall  call  those  who  have  nesrlected 
his  salvation,  to  receive  the  reward  of  unbehef  and 
unrighteousness.  Instead  of  those  gentle  words  of 
love  and  mercy,  that  invite  the  guilty  to  pardon 
and  happiness,  the  Judge  shall  pronounce  their 
sentence  of  eternal  condemnation,  and  remit  them 
to  the  place  of  torment.  "  Take  them,  angels,  bind 
them  hand  and  foot,  and  cast  them  into  the  lake 
that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone."  Such  hav- 
ing despised  and  neglected  his  mercy,  he  "  also 
will  laugh  at  their  calamity ;  he  will  mock  when 
their  fear  cometh." 

What  an  awful  meeting  for  the  enemies  of  Jesus 
who  have  labored  with  all  zeal  and  embittered 
enmity  to  oppose  the  dignity  of  his  person  !  They 
would  not  have  the  man,  Christ  Jesus,  to  reign 
over  them ;  but  now  they  must  submit  to  him  as 
Judge.  They  made  him  altogether  such  an  one  as 
themselves,  and  have  refused  to  honor  him',  as 
they   pretended  to  honor  the  Father.     ISTow  they 


TliE   RESUKKEGTION.  355 

must  behold  him  clothed  in  divine  majesty,  and 
able  to  frown  them  into  the  place  of  torment.  At 
that  time,  though  reluctantly,  they  must  confess 
him.  Tlie  condition  of  rebels  who  have  strenii- 
onsly  opposed  the  just  authority  of  their  sovereign 
but  who  have  now  been  brought  in  chains  into  his 
presence,  affords  but  a  faint  emblem  of  the  dread- 
ful situation  of  such  deluded  men.  'They  reject  his 
claims  to  divine  honor,  though  the  works  of  al- 
mighty power  which  he  ]3erformed  attested  that 
what  he  spoke  was  true,  and  though  the  Father 
fully  confirmed  all  he  had  said,  when  He  raised 
him  from  the  dead.  How,  then,  shall  they  look 
him  in  the  face  ?  Where  shall  they  hide  them- 
selves ?  In  vain  shall  they  call  upon  the  rocks  and 
the  mountains  to  fall  upon  them,  and  to  hide  them 
fi'om  the  presence  of  the  Lamb  ;  the  great  day  of 
his  wrath  being  come,  and  that  man  whom  they 
denied  as  being  the  true  God,  shall  overtake  them 
with  vengeance,  though  they  hide  themselves  in 
the  depths  of  the  ocean. 

Let  us  attend  for  a  moment  to  the  rule  of  judg- 
ment. "  They  that  have  done  good^  shall  come 
forth  to  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that  have 
done  evil^  to  the  resurrection  of  condemnation.'" 
By  their  works  shall  men  be  tried.  In  vain,  you 
workers  of  iniquity,  do  you  seek  in  yourselves  the 
supposed  marks  of  grace.  In  vain,  ye  sober  reli- 
gionists, do  you  comfort  yourselves  w^ith  the  work- 


356  THE    KESUKRECTIO^'. 

ings  of  a  deluded  mind.  In  vain  do  you  substitute 
a  pharasaical  face,  in  the  room  of  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  Chi'ist.  The  covetous  man  and  tlie  extor- 
tioner, the  lover  of  the  praise  of  men  and  of  earthly 
honor,  may  assume,  and  in  some  instances  main- 
tain, a  religious  profession,  and  be  able  to  enume- 
rate their  happv  symptoms,  amidst  all  their  fail- 
ings, defects,  and  spots ;  but  the  righteous  Judge 
declares,  that  they  "v\'ho  have  done  eml^  let  their 
feelings  have  been  what  they  might,  shall  come 
forth  to  everlasting:  condemnation.  The  cautious 
orthodox}^  of  unfruitful  speculators  in  religion,  may 
suppose  that  this  is  laying  too  great  a  stress  upon 
character,  and  that  to  represent  matters  in  this 
unguarded  way,  is  calculated  to  countenance  the 
advocates  of  salvation  by  works  ;  but  these  are  the 
words  of  Jesus  ;  this  is  a  document  published  by 
him  who  shall  sit  in  the  awful  judgment.  Let 
none  presume  to  direct  men  to  another  criterion  of 
character.  By  their  works  alone  can  men  prove 
that  they  have  believed  the  Gospel.  "  i^ot  every 
one  that  saith  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of 
my  Father  (saith  Jesus)  who  is  in  heaven.  Tliis  is 
the  love  of  God  that  ye  keep  his  commandments — 
ye  are  my  disciples  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  command 
you — he  that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth 
them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me." 

But  who  are  they  that  do  cjood  ?     Are  they  such 


THE   KESUERECTION. 


357 


as  act  according  to  a  standard  whicli  tliey  them- 
selves have  erected,  for  the  criterion  of  conduct  ? 
Ye,  YN^ho  trust  to  your  own  works,  pervert  not  the 
Scriptures  to  your  own  destruction.     Eternal  life 
shall  indeed  be  given  to  them  ilioX  do  good ;  but 
the  doing  of  good  is  not  the  price  of  the  reward, 
but  the  standard  and  measure  by  which  the  extent 
of  the  reward  is  determined.     Eternal  life  is  the 
gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ ;   the  doing  of 
good  is  the  fruit  and  evidence  of  believing  the 
truth  that  justifies  the  ungodly.     Jesus  has  made 
the  doing  of  good  the  criterion  of  character ;  be- 
cause this  is  the  characteristic  of  all  his  disciples, 
and  of  none  besides.     ISTone  but  such  as  believe  in 
him  can  do  anything  good  in  the  sight  of  God,  the 
carnal  mind  being  enmity  against  God ;  therefore, 
they  that  are  in  i\\Q  flesh  cannot  please  God.     To 
do  good,  is  to  do  wliat  Jesus  commanded  out  of 
love  to  him  and  respect  for  his  authority.     To  do 
good  is  to  obey  God ;  this  none  do  but  such  as 
receive  his  testimony  with  respect  to  His  son  Jesus 
Christ.     This  being  the  Father's   commmidment 
that^men  believe  on  the  name  of  His  son  Jesus 
Christ.— 1  John  iii.  23.     The  heart  of  man  being 
naturally  unclean,  there  naturally  flows  from  it, 
evil   thoughts,   murders,    adulteries,   blasphemies, 
&c.,  till  the  same  is  purified.     This  is  only  done  by 
faith  (Acts  XV.  9),  or  by  men  obeying  the  truth 
through  the  Spirit  (1  Peter  i,  22) ;  and  thencefor- 


358  THE   RESURRECTION. 

ward  the  issues  of  life  correspond  to  the  purified 
source  from  which  they  ilow :  "  A  good  man  out 
of  the  good  treasm-e  of  his  heart,  bringeth  forth 
good  things,  whilst  an  evil  man,  out  of  the  evil 
treasure  of  his  heart,  bringeth  forth  evil  things." 
This  takes  place  as  naturally  and  necessarily  as  a 
good  tree  bringeth  forth  good  fruit,  and  a  cornipt 
or  a  bad  tree  bringeth  forth  bad  fi"uit.  Every  tree 
is  known  by  his  fruit.  Do  men  gather  grapes  off 
thorns,  or  figs  off  thistles  ?  Even  so  a  good  tree 
caimot  bring  forth  bad  fruit,  or  a  bad  tree  good 
fruit.  "Wherefore,  by  their  fruits  shall  men  be 
known. 

Those  who  seek  the  shelter  of  such  passages  as 
these,  because  they  are  externally  decent  and  sober 
in  their  conduct ;  because  they  are  good  members 
of  society,  and  have  been  distinguished  for  many 
actions  in  themselves  good ;  shall  be  di'iven  from 
their  refuge  of  lies  when  the  Judge  shall  determine 
the  true  motives  of  their  conduct.  The  motive 
is  essential  in  determining  the  nature  of  an  action. 
Tilings  in  themselves  good  may  be  performed  fi-om 
such  motives  as  will  stamp  the  action  to  be  sinful, 
and  instead  of  meriting  reward,  to  be  deserving  of 
indignation.  Ploughmg  is  a  duty ;  but  the  ploughing 
of  the  wicked  is  sin.  The  sum  of  the  morality  of 
the  Scriptures,  is  the  love  of  God  and  man.  Manay 
in  their  account  of  morality  altogether  overlook 
what  respects   God,   and   consider  what  respects 


THE   RESUERECTION. 


359 


man  merely  from  the  action,  witliont  reference  to 
tlie  motive.    But  the  Scriptures  suppose  that  we 
might  give  our  bodies  to  be  burnt  through  zeal, 
and  alfour  substance  to  feed  the  poor,  yet  neither 
love  God  nor  man.     Good  works,  in  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  are  neither  the  hollow  morality  of  some 
nor  the  servile  acts  of  voluntary  humility  of  others. 
They  are  works  which  Jesus  requires  performed, 
because  he  requires  them.    Those  who  in  this  way 
give  but  a  cup  of  cold  water,  shall  not  lose  their 
reward;   while,  from  a   different   principle,  they 
might  give  all  their  goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and  not 
be  profited.     Let  those,  then,  who  know  Jesus, 
walk  in  all  his  commandments  and  ordinances,  for 
this   is   the   criterion   of  character.      Let   sinners 
believe  in  him;  for  this  is  the  only  way  that  they 
can  bring  forth  good  fruit  and  stand  in  the  day  of 
retribution.     It  is  a  faithM  saying  that  Jesus  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  and  they  alone  are 
righteous  who  believe  it.     "He  that  believeth  on 
th^  Son  hath  everlasting  life  :  and  he  that  believeth 
not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him." 


A  VIEW 


BAY  OF  JUDGMENT 


AS  DELINEATED   IN  THE   SCRIPTURES. 


My  soul !  take  a  view  of  tlie  awful  transactions 
of  that  day,  which  closes  the  dui-ation  of  this  world, 
and  assembles  the  children  of  Adam  for  judgment. 
The  spectacle  is  glorious,  but  terrible ;  it  gratifies 
the  taste  while  it  excites  to  diligence.  Art  thou  en- 
raptured with  the  grand  and  the  awful  in  the  works 
of  creation  ?  Dost  thou  feast  with  delight  on  the 
rugged,  but  venerable  majesty  of  the  mountain? 
Dost  thou  delight  to  look  on  the  f-dce  of  heaven, 
when  bespangled  with  its  fiery  orbs  ?  Tliou  lookest 
on  tlie  ocean,  and  art  pleasingly  overwhehned  with 
the  conception  of  so  vast  a  collection  of  waters. 
Thou  vie  west  it  in  a  storm,  and  art  transported. 
When  the  angry  waves  lash  the  sounduig  shores ; 
when,  with  repeated  shocks,  they  tlii-eaten  to  drive 
the  towering  rocks  from  their  foundations,  and  the 


362  PAY    OF   JUDGISIENT. 

wliite  spray  rises  aloft  sprinkling  the  shepherd  on 
his  distant  hill,  thou  sajest,  it  is  grand !  Rage  on, 
proud  waves,  ye  are  the  ministers  of  God :  proclaim 
to  mankind  the  terror  of  liis  power ! 

Dost  thou  feel,  my  soul,  an  awful  and  gloomy 
pleasure  from  the  hoarse  roaring  of  the  wind? 
Dost  thou  not  fancy  that  thou  heai-est  the  angry 
voice  of  God  ?  Yon  hollow  and  dismal  groans  put 
thee  in  mind  of  the  impending  ruin  of  His  enemies. 

Dost  thou  look  my  soid  with  pleasm-e  on  the 
lightning,  and  hear  with  awful  satisfaction  the 
voice  of  thunder?  When  it  rumbles  through  the 
clouds  with  a  hoarse  and  horrible  groaning ;  when 
the  mountains  are  shaken  by  its  noise,  and  the 
heavens  themselves  seem  to  crash  by  its  ftuy,  dost 
thou  say,  here  is  sublimity? 

Come  away,  my  soul;  turn  from  these  grand 
objects  to  one  that  is  mfinitely  more  grand.  Axlvance 
to  the  contemplation  of  an  object  which  the  men  of 
this  world  view  with  horror,  or  dare  not  view  at 
all.  Come  view  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  of 
God  Almighty.  It  is  a  scene  of  terror  indeed; 
but  it  has  no  terrors  for  the  friends  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge 
of  those  for  whom  he  died  ?  On  that  memorable 
day  in  which  our  Lord  ascended  from  the  midst 
of  his  disciples  it  was  notified  to  them  by  two 
angels,  that  he  would  again  descend  upon  the 
earth:    "And  when  he  had  spoken  these  things, 


DAY   OF   JUDGMENT.  363 

while  thej  beheld,  he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud 
received  him  out  of  their  sight.  And  while  they 
looked  steadfastly  toward  heaven  as  he  went  up, 
behold  two  men  stood  by  them  in  white  apparel ; 
w^ho  also  said :  Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye 
gazing  up  into  heaven?  This  same  Jesus  that  is 
taken  uj)  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in 
like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  lihn  go  into  heaven." — 
Acts  i.  9-^11.  ' 

Both  om-  Lord  and  his  Apostles  have  given  signs 
of  the  approach  of  that  day,  and  have  foretold  a 
number  of  events  that  must  take  place  before  it. 
But  the  exact  time  of  his  coming,  Jesus  has  not 
declared ;  nor  was  this  any  of  those  things  which 
he  had  in  charge  fi'om  the  Father  to  make  known 
to  his  people.  After  speaking  of  the  signs  of  his 
coming,  he  adds  :  "  But  of  that  day  and  horn' 
knoweth  no  man;  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven, 
but  my  Father  only."  Tlie  Scriptures,  however, 
furnish  us  with  some  interesting  descriptions  of  the 
terror  and  glory  of  his  appearance,  and  contain  a 
number  of  scattered  hints  of  the  procedure  and 
transactions  of  the  day  of  judgment.  In  examining 
these,  the  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is,  the  sudden- 
ness and  unexpectedness  of  his  coming.  Tliis  cir- 
cumstance adds  greatly  to  its  terror,  and  is,  in 
many  places,  emphatically  held  out  to  view.  Our 
Lord  compares  his  coming  to  the  lightning,  than 
which  nothing  perceivable  by  the  sense  flies  with 


364  DAY    OF    .TUDGMEXT. 

greater  rapidity :  "  For  as  the  lightning  cometh 
out  of  tlie  east,  and  shineth  even  nnto  the  west,  so 
shall  also  the  coming  of  ^  the  Son  of  Man  be."  Ko 
man  will  have  time  to  advertise  his  friend  of  this 
event  after  it  takes  place.  He  will  not  appear  in 
one  country  before  another,  but,  as  a  flash  of  light- 
nuig  crosses  from  east  to  west,  in  the  twinldmg  of 
an  eye,  so  shall  the  Lord  appear  to  all  nations  at 
the  same  instant. 

It  may  be  asked  how  can  he  be  seen  by  all 
nations  at  the  same  time  ?  At  the  instant  he  is 
descried  in  any  one  part  of  the  earth,  must  he  not 
be  invisible  to  every  other  ?  Especially,  when  he 
appears  to  the  nations  on  this  side  of  the  globe,  how 
can  he  be  seen  by  those  on  the  other  ?  Let  his 
descent  be  ever  so  rapid,  must  he  not  either  make 
a  circuit  round  the  globe,  or  have  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  earth  gathered  into  one  place  before  he  can 
be  visible  to  them  all  ?  To  those  who  make  these 
objections,  I  reply,  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  on 
another  subject :  "  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the 
Scriptures,  neither  the  power  of  God."  L^pon  this 
subject  and,  in  general,  upon  everything  that  relates 
to  the  world  to  come,  men  have  found  a  great  many 
difficulties  ;  and  have  invented  a  great  many  solu- 
tions, which  are  founded  on  the  notion,  that  the 
oj)erations  of  God  must  be  conducted  in  some  way 
analogous  to  those  of  men  ;  and  that  the  present  laws 
that  regulate  the  phenomena  of  nature,  must  always 


UAY   OF   JUDGMENT.  365 


exist     The  laws  of  vision,  for  instance,  that  now 
re^^vJate  and  limit  onr  powers  of  sight,  ax-e  supposed 
0  continue  for  ever.    But,  in  reality,  there  w.xM 
be  nothing  more  wonderful  in  our  seemg  round  the 
XL,  or  to  its  centre,  through  allthe  dense  mate- 
Sals  ;f  which  it  is  composed;  or  in  our  seemg  the 
.ninutest  objects  in  the  fixed  Btars,,than  m  our  s^e- 
in.r  an  obiect  within  a  few  yards  dis  ance.     ihe 
^^-eatestpMosopheron  earth  cannot  g.ve--eason 
W  we  see  at  all.    He  may  trace  the  laws  of  vision 
he  mav  tell  us  of  the  rays  of  light  coming  from  the 
object  to  the  eye-entering  the  fje  m  such  a  dn-ec^ 
tion,  and  forming  a  picture  on  the  bottom  of   t ,  he 
mav-  tell  US  of  the  impression  communicated  to  the 
brain  by  the  optic  nerve  :  but  here  he  mus    stop 
Why  this  would  make  the  object  perceivable  to 
lUisheyondliisskilh^^H^^^^^^^^^^^ 

::S^:t:^r:j:':s^.r^thL^ij 

uouth,  he  can  give  no  reason,  but  that  it  is  the  w 
of  God.  If,  then,  it  altogether  depends  on  the  will 
of  God,  that  we  see  with  our  eyes  at  the  proper  dis- 
tance, ^ould  not  God  as  easily  make  objects  visible 
to  us  without  eyes,  or  make  us,  with  the  eyes  which 
^ve  have  behold  objects  most  perfectly,  all  lound 
the  Ib^  Might  4e  not  read  a  volume  placed  at 
he  remotest  of  the  fixed  stars,  or  perceive  what  is 
g   ngri.  heaven  itself.    Stephen  saw  the  heavens 


366  DAY   OF   JUDGEMENT. 

opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the  right 
hand  of  God. 

"We  can,  in  no  instance,  jndge  of  the  extent  of 
the  powers  of  perception,  in  our  futm-e  state  of  ex- 
istence, from  the  present  haws  by  which  they  are 
regulated  and  limited.  Let  us,  then,  in  ascertaining 
from  the  Scriptures  the  mind  of  God  on  this  sub- 
ject, beware  of  limiting  the  power  of  God,  by  our 
weak  conceptions  of  possibility.  Let  us  not  avoid 
the  obvious  meaning  of  His  word,  on  account  of 
any  inconsistency  between  this  and  the  established 
laws  of  nature.  ISTature  is  but  the  order  of  His 
operation ;  and  though  it  is  unchangeable  by  us,  it 
is  not  so  to  Him.  Let  us  not  make  any  bold  conjec- 
tures, to  reconcile  our  o^^m  views  of  possibility  with 
his  authoritative  declarations.  That  all  will  see 
him  in  his  descent,  previous  to  their  being  gathered 
before  his  tribunal,  is  clear  from  many  passages  of 
Scripture,  and,  therefore,  not  to  be  questioned  on 
account  of  any  difficulties  from  the  laws  of  nature. 
"  And  then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man 
in  heaven :  and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth 
mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and  great 
glory."  Here  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  are  repre- 
sented as  beholding  the  coming  of  the  Judge.  The 
next  verse  gives  an  account  of  the  gathering  of 
the  saints,  as  subsequent  to  this.  Jesus  says  to  the 
high-priest,  and  those  that  sat  with  him, ''  Hereafter 


DAY   OF   JL"DG:\IEJN'T.  367 

shall  ye  see  tlie  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven." 
John  also  declares,  "  behold,  he  cometh  with  clouds, 
and  every  eye  shall  see  him ;  and  they  also  who 
pierced  him ;  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall 
wail  because  of  him.  Even  so,  amen."  Jesus 
Christ,  therefore,  in  his  descent  from  heaven,  will 
be  seen  by  every  individual  of  the  human  race. 
What  a  terrible  appearance  must  this  be  to  his 
enemies  1  Whither  shall  they  fly  from  his  presence  ? 
Look  up,  thou  bold  infidel ;  behold  him  whom  thou 
wouldst  not  have  to  reign  over  thee ;  yon  sight  will 
cure  thine  mibelief.  Behold  the  despised  [N^azarene 
in  the  midst  of  his  heavenly  legions.  David  Hume, 
what  seest  thou  ?  Dlustrious  sceptic,  dost  thou  still 
doubt  ? 

Degenerate  sons  of  Abraham,  look  up  to  yon 
cloud  that  carries  to  the  work  of  vengeance  him 
whom  ye  crucified  as  an  impostor.  Yonder  comes 
the  God  whom  ye  blasphemed  as  an  associate  with 
the  devil.  O,  unhappy  man !  Proud  son  of  science, 
lift  ujD  thine  eye  from  the  volume  of  nature,  and 
behold  this  singular  phenomenon.  There  appears 
nothing  in  the  cross  worthy  of  thy  attention ;  thy 
system  of  virtue  needs  no  atonement  for  guilty 
men ;  thy  philosophy  accounts  for  all  things,  with- 
out any  instructions  from  the  Galilean,  or  his  unlet- 
tered fishermen.  Come,  now,  gather  all  your 
volumes  of  wisdom,  and  show  the  Judge,  fi'om  the 


368  DAY  OF  jrDG:^!!:^"!. 

necessary  relations  and  fitness  of  tilings,  that  it  is 
improper  for  him  to  condemn  his  enemies.  Ap- 
peal from  his  tribunal  altogether,  and  refuse  to  be 
tried  by  any  other  standard,  but  that  which  thon 
hast  established  for  thyself. 

Yet  his  coming  will  not  only  be  suddenly  and 
simultaneously  visible  to  all  men,  it  will  also  be 
unexpected.  The  world  will  be  surprised  in  the 
midst  of  the  greatest  security,  earnestly  intent  on 
the  concerns  of  this  life.  We  are  taught  this  by 
the  destruction  of  the  world  by  the  flood.  Our 
Lord  illustrates  the  circumstances  of  his  second 
coming,  by  this  example :  "  But  as  the  days  of 
Noah  were,  so  shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
Man  be.  For  as  in  the  days  that  were  before  the 
flood,  they  were  eating  and  drinking,  marrying  and 
giving  in  marriage,  until  the  day  that  Xoah  entered 
into  the  ark,  and  knew  not  until  the  flood  came, 
and  took  them  all  away ;  so  shall  also  the  comino; 
of  the  Son  of  Man  be."  Notwithstanding  that 
Noah,  the  preacher  of  righteousness,  through  the 
long-suffering  of  God,  continued  to  warn  them  dur 
ing  the  time  that  the  ark  was  preparing,  they  were 
as  ignorant  of  the  matter  as  the  dead.  Tliey  knew 
not  till  the  flood  came. 

We  are  taught  the  same  thing  by  the  parable  of 
the  ten  vii'gins :  ''  Then  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
be  likened  unto  ten  virgins,  who  took  their  lamps, 
and  went  forth  to  meet  the  bridegroom.     And  five 


DAY   OF   JUDGMENT.  369 

of  them  were  wise  and  five  were  foollsli.  They 
that  were  foolish  took  their  lamps,  and  took  no  oil 
with  them ;  but  the  wise  took  oil  in  their  vessels 
with  their  lamps.  While  the  bridegroom  tarried, 
they  all  slumbered  and  slept.  And  at  midnight 
there  was  a  cry  made,  Behold,  the  bridegroom 
Cometh ;  go  ye  out  to  meet  him.  Then  all  those 
virgin  arose  and  trimmed  their  lamps.  And  th 
foolish  said  unto  the  wise.  Give  us  of  your  oil,  f 
our  lamps  are  gone  out.  But  the  wise  answered, 
saying,  Not  so ;  lest  there  be  not  enough  for  us  and 
you ;  but  go  ye  rather  to  them  that  sell,  and  buy 
for  yourselves.  And  while  they  went  to  buy,  the 
bridegroom  came ;  and  they  that  were  ready  went 
in  with  him  to  the  marriage ;  and  the  door  was 
shut.  Afterwards  came  also  the  other  virgins,  say- 
ing, Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us.  But  he  answered  and 
said,  Yerily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  know  you  not. 
"Watch,  therefore,  for  ye  know  neither  the  day  nor 
the  hour  wherein  the  Son  of  Man  cometh." — Matth. 
XXV.  1 — 13.  LIow  awful  will  be  that  midnight  cry 
to  all  that  are  not  furnished  with  oil  ?  Yain  the 
expectation  of  being  assisted  by  others,  or  of  im- 
portunity in  crying  for  mercy.  The  door  of  mercy 
will  then  be  shut  for  ever. 

The  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  is  said 
to  be  for  an  example  to  those  that  shall  live  ungodly. 
All  wicked  nations  are  not,  like  Sodom,  cut  off  by 
temporal   judgments ;    but   all  wicked  men  will 


370  DAY    OF   JUDGMENT. 

assuredly  suffer  a  similar  catastroplie.  The  Lord 
will  unexpectedly  come  upon  tliem,  and  hurl  them 
to  the  abodes  of  misery,  where  they  will  suffer  the 
vengeance  of  everlasting  fire.  Look  at  the  people 
of  Sodom  on  the  evening  before  their  destruction. 
Consider  their  emplojTiients  and  pleasures.  How 
secure !  how  little  suspicious  of  ruin !  Even  they 
that  were  warned  remained  ignorant  of  the  dreadful 
event,  till  the  moment  it  commenced :  "  and  the  men 
said  unto  Lot,  hast  thou  here  any  besides  ?  Sons-in- 
law,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  daughters,  and  whatso- 
ever thou  hast  in  the  citv  brino;  them  out  of  this 
place.  For  we  will  destroy  this  place,  because  the 
cry  of  them  is  waxen  great  before  the  face  of  the 
Lord ;  and  the  Lord  hath  sent  us  to  destroy  it. 
And  Lot  went  out  and  spoke  unto  his  sons-in-law, 
which  married  his  daughters,  and  said.  Up,  get  ye 
out  of  this  2)lace ;  for  the  Lord  will  destroy  this 
city ;  but  he  seemed  as  one  that  mocked  unto  his 
sons-in-law." — Gen.  xix.  12 — 14.  But  how  dread- 
fully were  they  convinced  in  the  morning  !  What 
an  awakening  out  of  sleep  !  "  The  sun  was  risen 
upon  the  earth,  when  Lot  entered  into  Zoar.  Then 
the  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and  u^Don  Gomorrah, 
brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven ; 
and  he  overthrew  these  cities,  and  all  the  plain, 
and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities,  and  that  which 
grew  upon  the  ground."  Thus  terribly  and  unex- 
pectedly will  the  Lord  descend  to  the  judgment  of 
the  great  day. 


DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  371 

Our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  illustrate  this  circum- 
stance, by  the  unexpectedness  of  a  robber  entering 
a  house  in  the  gloom  and  silence  of  night :  "  The 
day  of  the  Lord  so  cometli  as  a  thief  in  the  night. 
For  when  they  shall  say,  peace  and  safety,  then 
Budden  destruction  cometh  upon  them,  as  travail 
upon  a  woman  with  child,  and  they  shall  not 
escape." — 1  Thess.  v.  2. 

From  the  similitude  of  the  thief  in  the  nio-ht,  and 
the  midnight  cry,  some  have  imagined  that  Christ 
will  come  by  night  to  increase  the  surprise  and 
horror.  But  this  opinion  forgets,  that  while  it  is 
midnight  in  one  place,  it  is  noon  at  another. 
Besides  the  similitudes  teach  no  such  thino^.  The 
cry  of  the  coming  of  the  bridegroom  is  at  midnight, 
not  to  show  that  the  Lord  will  come  at  midnight ; 
but,  that  he  will  come  upon  men  as  unexpectedly, 
as  suddenly,  as  one  coming  at  that  unseasonable 
hour.  The  like  may  be  said  with  respect  to  the 
similitude  of  the  thief.  Figures  suppose  resem- 
blance ;  but  this  way  of  explaining  them  would 
confound  the  principal  object  with  the  similitude, 
and  make  that  apply  literally,  which  is  meant  to 
apply  only  iiguratively. 

It  may  be  asked,  do  these  passages  teach  that  the 
day  of  the  Lord  will  come  unexpectedly  to  the  peo- 
ple of  God  then  living?  The  slumbering  of  the 
virgins  certainly  appears  to  insinuate,  that  Christ's 
disciples  who  will  be  on  the  earth  at  his  coming, 


872  DAY    OF   JrT)GMT:XT. 

will  not  be  sufficiently  vio-ilant:  on  any  other  view, 
I  cannot  see  why  the  wise  virgins  should  be  re2:>re- 
sented  as  sleeping,  as  well  as  the  foolish.  In  some 
instances,  the  completeness  of  the  parable  requires 
circumstances  to  be  introduced,  which  have  nothing 
to  correspond  to  them  in  the  subject  to  be  illus- 
trated. But  that  is  not  the  case  here.  Tlie  virgins 
thus  waiting  for  the  bridegroom,  might  all  have 
remained  awake,  or  part  might  have  watched, 
though  the  rest  had  slept.  It  manifested  disresj^ect 
to  the  bridegroom,  for  any  of  the  party  expecting 
him,  to  sleep,  or  even  to  feel  an  inclination  to  it. 
This  part  of  the  parable,  then,  is  certainly  designed 
to  be  significant.  Ye  disciples  of  Jesus,  too  often 
ye  verify  this  part  of  the  representation.  Awake, 
and  with  lamps  in  your  hands,  be  always  looking 
out.  Be  not  only  furnished  with  oil,  but  stand 
ready  to  hail  liim.  Be  ashamed  of  your  lethargy. 
Why  are  ye  drowsy  ?  Is  it  a  slight  honor  to  be 
bidden  to  the  marriasre  of  the  crreat  Kino:  ? 

O  !  foolish  virgins,  how  tremendous  is  that  mid- 
night summons!  What  wild  confusion  will  fill 
your  souls  at  the  sudden  cry,  "  Go  ye  out  to  meet 
him."  What  stupefaction  is  in  sin !  Man  sports, 
with  unconcern,  on  the  very  brink  of  endless  misery. 
From  schemes  of  aggrandizement,  of  pleasure,  or 
of  folly,  he  wiU  be  hurried  before  the  judgment- 
seat. 

Let  us  now  take  a  view  of  the  passages  of  Scrip- 


PAT    OF   JUDGI^ffiNT.  6(0 

tiire  in  which  the  transactions  of  that  glorious  day 
are  described.  In  some  respects  it  might  be  better 
to  present,  in  one  connected  view,  all  the  facts  in 
their  order,  as  far  as  this  can  be  collected  from  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  qnote  no  more  of  each  passage 
than  what  should  bear  npon  the  point  in  hand. 
But  as  my  object  is  not  to  argue,  but  to  point  to 
the  sources  of  gratification  afforded  to  the  mind  by 
this  subject,  I  judge  it  more  profitable  to  take 
every  passage  in  detail,  that  in  all  the  varied 
lights  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  brings  this  before 
us,  we  may  leisurely  examine  and  admire.  We 
shall  thus  have  an  unbroken  view  of  each  of  these 
divine  drawings,  while  in  the  one,  we  can  note  the 
things  that  are  untouched  in  the  other. 

Our  Lord  himself  gives  a  solemn  and  striking- 
view  of  the  judgment,  which  is  recorded  in  the 
twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Matthew's  Gospel :  "  When 
the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the 
holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the 
throne  of  his  glory;  and  before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  nations  ;  and  he  shall  separate  them, 
one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep 
from  the  goats ;  and  he  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his 
right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  his  left.  Then  shall 
the  King  say  unto  them  on  his  right  hand.  Come  ye 
blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared 
for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  :  for  I 
was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me  meat ;  I  was 


374:  DAY    OF    JUDGMENT. 

thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink ;  I  was  a  sti-anger, 
and  ye  took  me  in  ;  naked,  and  ye  clothed  me  ;  I 
was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me  ;  I  was  in  prison,  and 
ye  came  unto  me.  Then  shall  the  righteous  answer 
him,  saying,  Lord,  when  saw  we  the  an  hungered, 
and  fed  thee  ?  or  thirsty,  and  gave  thee  drink  ? 
"When  saw  we  thee  a  stranger,  and  took  thee  in  ?  or 
naked,  and  clothed  thee  ?  Or  when  saw  we  thee 
sick,  or  in  prison,  and  came  unto  thee  ?  And  the 
Eang  shall  answer,  and  say  unto  them,  Yerily,  I 
say  unto  you,  inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto 
one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done 
it  unto  me.  Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on 
his  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into 
everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels  :  for  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me  no 
meat ;  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  no  di'ink ; 
I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  not  in ;  naked, 
and  ye  clothed  me  not ;  sick,  and  in  prison,  and  ye 
visited  me  not.  Then  shall  they  also  answer  him, 
saying.  Lord,  when  saw  we  thee  an  hungered,  or 
athirst,  or  a  stranger,  or  naked,  or  sick,  or  in 
prison,  and  did  not  minister  unto  thee  ?  Then  shall 
he  answer  them,  saying,  Yerily,  I  say  unto  you, 
inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  to  one  of  the  least  of 
these,  ye  did  it  not  to  me.  And  these  shall 
go  away  into  everlasting  j^iuiishment ;  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal.''  Let  us  here  pause  for 
a  moment,  to  contemplate  this  solenm  scene.    Jesus 


DAY   OF  JTBGMENT.  375 

will  come  in  his  glory.  And  what  will  be  the 
glory  of  him,  whom  the  Father  delighteth  to  honor? 
Of  him,  ^\ho  glorified  the  Father,  and  all  the 
divine  perfections,  by  the  redemption  of  guilty 
sinners  ?  In  his  retinue  Avill  be  all  the  angels  of 
heaven.  What  an  august  assembly !  How  glorious 
a  spectacle  !  How  grand  the  appearance  of  Jesus 
and  his  company,  when  they  burst  through  the 
heavens  and  become  visible  to  men !  O,  my  soul ! 
do  not  flag ;  sink  not  under  the  difficulties  of  the 
Christian  life  ;  endure  to  the  end,  and  thou  shalt 
share  his  glory.  Keep  this  j^i'ospect  continually 
before  thee,  and  despise  the  laugh  of  fools. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  eyes  to  our  Lord,  seated  on 
the  throne  of  judgment,  and  to  the  innumerable 
multitudes  assembled  before  him.  It  is  '^  the 
throne  of  his  glory."  If  so,  what  imagination  can 
form  an  adequate  conception  of  its  lustre  ?  Com- 
pared to  this,  the  gorgeous  thrones  of  the  kings  of 
the  earth  are  no  better  than  the  seats  of  beggars 
by  the  way  side.  O,  ye  sovereigns  of  the  world 
submit  yourselves  to  this  King  of  kings.  Your 
true  glory  consists  not  in  sumptuous  palaces,  gor- 
geous thrones,  or  humble  prostrations  of  your  sub- 
jects. Know  that  your  highest  honor  is  to  be  the 
ministers  of  this  great  King.  Jesus  has  given  you 
your  thrones,  and  they  are  upheld  by  his  provi- 
dence. O,  how  will  you  stand  before  his  throne, 
if  ye  have  rejected  his  Gospel,  despised  his  autho- 


376 


DAY    OF    JUDGifEXT. 


ritj,  and  persecuted  liis  people  ?  Believe  in  him, 
that  you  may  sit  down  with  him  upon  his  throne, 
as  he  has  sat  down  upon  the  throne  of  his  Father. 

Let  us  reflect  a  moment  on  the  immensity  of  the 
assembly  standing  before  the  throne  of  judgment: 
"  Before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations."  What 
an  appearance  would  the  inhabitants  of  this  island 
make,  if  they  were  all  assembled  in  one  place ! 
But  if  all  the  generations  that  ever  have  inhabited 
this  island  were  assembled,  the  multitude  would  be 
immense.  What,  then,  shall  be  the  multitude,  when 
all  the  inhabitants  of  all  the  islands,  and  continents 
of  the  earth,  of  all  generations,  shall  stand  before 
God  ?  Let  no  impenitent  sinner  hope  to  escape  in 
this  crowd,  through  the  ignorance  or  inattention  of 
the  Judffe.  Xot  the  slio^htest  mistake  will  he  make 
with  respect  to  the  character  of  one  of  the  whole 
multitude.  The  Judge  is  the  Searcher  of  Hearts, 
therefore  iit  for  his  office.  '•  He  will  separate  them, 
one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheej^ 
from  the  goats."  Sinners,  your  doom  will  then  be 
irreversible;  ye  shall  go  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment. 

We  may  also  notice  the  importance  which  the 
Judge  will  attach  to  works  of  love  to  his  disciples. 
These  are  exhibited  as  the  criterion  of  judgment. 
All  his  followers  who  have  had  opportunity  to 
manifest  their  disposition,  will  be  characterized  by 
offices  of  love  to  the  brethren  of  their  Lord.     The 


DAY    UF    JLDUJIENT.  377 

atonement  of  Clirist  luis  washed  away  tlieir  sins ; 
faitli  in  the  testimony  of  God,  with  respect  to  that 
atonement,  has  justilied  them  before  Him,  and  dis- 
posed them  to  do  His  will.  His  neAV  command- 
ment is,  that  His  disciples  shall  love  one  another ; 
therefore,  whoever  love  not  Christ's  people,  are 
not  his  disciples.  Think  of  this,  yon  that  hate 
them,  because  they  are  his ;  tliat  mock  them,  be- 
cause they  do  the  things  which  he  hath  enjoined  on 
them ;  that  persecute  them,  because  they  will  not 
renounce  his  authority,  and  do  what-  he  has  for- 
bidden. 

Is^or  will  there  be  found  in  all  the  multitude  of 
the  wicked,  an  individual  who  hath  given  so  much 
as  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  one  of  his  disciples,  out  of 
love  to  his  master.  "And  whosoever  shall  give  to 
drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  a  cup  of  cold 
w^ater,  only  in  the  name  of  a  disciple,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward." — 
Mat.  X.  42.  As  none  of  the  wicked  can  be  rewarded 
none  of  them  have  ever  given  the  smallest  favor  to 
a  disciple  for  Christ's  sake.  It  is  not  merely  human- 
ity, sympathy,  and  that  sort  of  universal  benevo- 
lence, to  which  some  are  fond  of  reducing  the  whole 
of  duty;  much  less  is  it  the  value  of  the  things 
given,  than  that  Christ  will  look  to  in  the  judgment. 
It  is  the  distinguishing  love  of  his  people  that  he 
requires.  Many  persons  distinguished  for  general 
philanthrophy,  dislike  Christ's  people.     Many  per- 


378  DAY    OF   JUDGMENT. 

form  works  of  cliarity,  merely  from  the  feelings  of 
their  natm-e.  If  a  man  should  give  all  his  goods  to 
feed  the  poor,  and  were  not  ])ossessed  of  that  love 
to  Chi'ist  and  his  people  that  flows  from  faith  in  his 
atonement,  it  would  profit  him  nothing. — 1  Cor. 
xiii.  3.  Indeed,  none  more  vehemently  hate  Christ's 
people,  than  those  who  mean  to  storm  heaven  by 
their  pretensions  of  universal  benevolence.  Trajan 
and  Antoninus  are  among  the  persecutors  of  Chris- 
tians ;  while  some  of  the  beastly  emperors  suffered 
them  to  escape. 

Some  interesting  ^particulars  relative  to  the  judg- 
ment may  be  learned  from  one  of  Christ's  parables : 
"  And  as  they  heard  these  things,  he  added,  and 
spake  a  parable,  because  he  was  nigh  to  Jerusalem, 
and  because  thev  thoua-ht  that  the  kino;dom  of  God 
should  immediately  appear.  He  said,  therefore, 
a  certain  nobleman  went  into  a  far  country,  to 
receive  for  himself  a  kingdom,  and  to  return.  And 
he  called  his  ten  servants,  and  delivered  them  ten 
pounds,  and  said  unto  them,  occupy  till  I  come. 
But  his  citizens  hated  him,  and  sent  a  message 
after  him,  saying,  we  will  not  have  this  man  reign 
over  us.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  when  he  was 
retm-ned,  having  received  the  kingdom,  then  he 
commanded  these  servants  to  be  caU  imto  him,  to 
whom  he  had  given  the  money,  that  he  might 
know  how  much  every  man  had  gained  by  trading. 
Then  came  the  fii*st,  saying,  Lord,  thy  pound  hath 


DAY    OF   JUDGilENT. 


379 


gained  ten  pounds.     And  he  said  unto  him,  Well, 
thou  good  servant ;  because  thou  hast  been  faithful 
in  a  very  little,  have  thou  authority  over  ten  cities. 
And  the  second  came,  saying,  Lord,  thy  pound 
hath  gained  ^yq  pounds.     And  he  said  likewise 
to  him.  Be  thou  also  over  five  cities.     And  another 
came,  sa}dng.  Lord,  behold,   here  is  thy  pound, 
which  I  have  kept  laid  up  in  a  napkin  :    for  I 
feared  thee,  because  thou  art  an  austere  man  ;  thou 
takest  up  that  thou  layest  not  down,  and  reapest 
that  thou  didst  not  sow.     And  he  saith  imto  him, 
Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I  judge  thee,  thou 
wicked   servant.      Thou  knewest  that  I  was   an 
austere  man,  taking  up  that  I  laid  not  down,  and 
reaping  that  I  did  not  sow ;  wherefore,  then,  gavest 
not  thou  my  money  into  the  bank,  that  at  my 
coming   I   might   have  required   mine  own  with 
usury?     And  he  said  unto  them  that  stood   by. 
Take  from  him  the  pound,  and  give  it  to  him  that 
hath  ten  pounds.     (And  they  said  unto  him.  Lord, 
he  hath  ten  pounds.)     For  I  say  unto  you,  that 
unto  every  one  who  hath  shall  be  given  ;  and  from 
him  that  hath  not,  even  that  he  hath  shall  be  taken 
away  from  him.     But  these,  mine  enemies,  who 
would  not  that  I  should  reign  over  them,  bring 
hither,  and  slay  them  before  me."— Luke  xix.  11-27. 
From  this  we  learn,  that  among  his  professed  ser- 
vants, there  are  many  who  have  very  unworthy 
views  of   his  character,  and,  consequently,  have 


380  DAY    OF   JUDGME^vT. 

never  truly  served  him.  All  their  evasions  and 
excuses  on  that  day  shall  be  vain.  The  high  and 
glorious  character  of  Christians,  that  they  have  in 
this  world  unjustly  arrogated,  shall  be  tajien  away, 
and  they  will  be  punished  as  wicked  servants,  who 
have  aggravated  their  guilt  by  an  abuse  of  their 
opportunities.  His  profession  shall  avail  him  no- 
thing. "  Cast  ye  the  unprofitable  servant  into  outer 
darkness ;  there  shall  be  weej^ing  and  gnashing  of 
teeth."— Mat.  xxv.  30. 

This  parable  holds  out  the  greatest  encourage- 
ment to  Christian  exertion.  Our  works  bring  us 
not  into  favor  with  God ;  but  they  are  immensely 
profitable,  as  the  criterion  in  the  distribution  of 
rewards.  Being  created  in  Christ  Jesus  imto  good 
works,  we  can  no  more  boast  in  our  lives,  that  we 
can  boast  in  atoning  for  our  sins.  But  greater 
encouragement  for  good  works  need  not  be  desired, 
than  that  without  them  we  prove  ourselves  to  be 
the  enemies  of  Christ ;  and  that  in  proportion  to 
them  we  shall  receive  our  reward.  He  that  in- 
creased his  pound  to  ten,  was  made  ruler  over  ten 
cities ;  he  that  had  got  five,  was  set  over  -^ve  cities. 
Can  there  be  a  greater  stimulus  to  activity  in  trade, 
than  the  certain  prospect  of  succeding  according  to 
exertion,  without  being  marred  by  accidents,  or 
any  untoward  events  ?  What  an  elevating  view ! 
"Why  do  we  not  strain  every  nerve  in  the  work  of 
Christ?      All   our   other   labors   will   be   without 


DAY    OF    JCDGircNT.  381 

advantage   in   a  few   years.      Our   labors  in  the 
work  of  Christ  are  of  eternal  advantage.     Here  is 
scope  for  our  ambition.     Here  we  may  enlarge  our 
territorieas  and-extend  onr  dominions  without  tlie 
iniury  of  others.     Tlie  works  of  a  momentary  life, 
liave  an   influence   on   eternity.     Ye   conquerors, 
who  subject  nations  to  your  dominion,  let  me  fight 
mth  all  efforts,  that  my  future  kingdom  maybe 
o-lorious  !     What  a  lesson  does  this  parable  read  to 
Jews,  infidels,  and  all  that  will  not  have  Jesus  to 
reign  over  theml      Many  have  boldly  sent  that 
message  after  him,  and  glory  in  refusing  subjection 
to  his  authority.     On  that  day  they  must  account 
before  assembled  worlds.     Will  any  apology  avad  ? 
Will  Christ  sustain  any  of  those  excuses  that  men 
are   sometunes  ready  to  make   for  one   another? 
WiU  ye  talk  of  your  sincerity «     Will  ye  allege  the 
virtue,  the  mtegrity,  the  benevolence  of  your  con- 
duct«     All  excuse  will  be  equally  vain.     "Those 
mine  enemies,  who  would  not  that  I  should  reign 
over  them,  bring  hither  and  slay  them  before  me. 

There  is  a  sense  m  which  the  poet's  language  is 
just— 

-  He  can't  be  wrong,  whose  life  is  in  the  right." 

But  in  the  sense  of  the  author,  it  is  an  awful  delu- 
sion. There  is  no  man  whose  life  is  worthy  of  the 
Gospel,  but  the  man  who  is  born  again,  through  the 
belief  of  the  truth.     But  in  the  partial  eye  of  man, 


382  DAY    OF   JUDGMENT. 

there  may  be  many  things  that  appear  to  have  a 
proud  demand  on  the  justice  of  heaven,  that  in  the 
day  of  judgment  will  be  discovered  to  be  hollow 
and  unsound. 

What  a  striking  difference  between  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  and  the  decisions  of  philosophers  !  I  am 
acquainted  with  no  system  of  moral  philosophy, 
that  is  not  radically  as  hostile  to  the  Gospel,  as  the 
writings  of  Bolingbroke  or  Paine.  They  all  treat 
of  man,  of  duty,  and  of  merit,  upon  the  supposition 
that  human  virtue  may  challenge  the  prize  of  a 
happy  immortal  life.  Kay,  more,  the  pulpit  is 
often  the  echo  of  the  schools ;  and  the  advantage 
of  revealed  religion  above  natural,  is,  that  it  assures 
the  mrtuotis  raan  of  a  happy  immortal  life,  of 
vrhich  the  latter  gave  probable  hoj)es.  How  many 
systems  of  duty  leave  the  atonement  of  Christ 
altogether  out  of  view  ?  How  unlike  to  this  is  the 
Gospel?  How  harshly  do  those  words  grate  on 
the  ear  of  the  wisdom  of  this  world :  "  He  that 
believeth,  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  believeth  not, 
shall  be  damned  !  " 

Instead,  then,  of  being  a  trivial  thing,  what 
opinions  we  entertain  with  respect  to  divine  truth, 
let  all  men  know,  that  greater  enmity  to  God  is 
discovered  in  men's  sentiments,  than  in  theii*  im- 
moral lives.  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  a  virtuous  and  a 
religious  man,  in  the  sense  of  the  world,  from  his 
earliest  youth  ;   yet  it  was  not  the  publicans  and 


DAY    OF    JL'DCnniNT. 


harlots,  but  liimseli;  as  tlie  determined  opposer  of 
Jesus,  that  he  designated  the  chief  of  smners. 
The  sober  unbeliever  must  go  down  to  perdition  in 
company  with  the  beastly  sensualist.  Except  they 
repent,  they  shall  both  perish  everlastingly. 

"We  have  a  most  animating  and  sublime  account 
of  the  coming  of  our  Lord,  in  the  end  of  the  fourth 
chapter  of  the  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians : 
»  For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  agam, 
even  so  also  them  that  sleep  in  Jesus,  will  God 
bring  with  Him.     For  this  we  say  unto  you  by  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  that  we  which  are  alive  and 
remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  shall  not  pre- 
vent them  which  are  asleep.     For  the  Lord  Him- 
self shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with 
the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of 
God  ;  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first :  then 
we  which  are  alive  and  remain,  shall  be  caught  up 
together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord 
in^he  air  ;  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord." 
This  description  presents  to  our  imagination  the 
glorious  Lord  in  his  descent  upon  the  earth,  with 
some  of  the  most  striking  circumstanc?^  of  that 
grand  and  terrible  appearance.     The  Tliessalonian 
churches  are  assured,  that  the  dead  will  not  be 
forgotten  in  that  day  more  than  the  living.     Them 
that  sleep  in  Jesus,  will  God  bring  with  Hnn  to 
heaven,  on  His  return  from  judgment.     Kor  wdl 
the  believers  who  are  alive  at  the  coming  of  Jesus, 


384  PAY    OF    JUDGMENT. 

be  taken  to  heaven  a  moment  before  their  bretln-en 
who  are  in  the  grave.  Thej  will  both  be  taken  up 
together  to  meet  their  Lord. 

The  Lord  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  s/wvt. 
The  word  that  corresponds  in  tlie  origintil  to  the 
English  word  shout,  is  derived  from  one  that  signi- 
fies to  exhort,  to  incite^  to  command;  and  is 
applied  to  denote  the  shout  of  soldiers  engaging  in 
battle,  to  encourage  each  other,  and  to  intimidate 
the  enemy.  It  is  also  used  to  denote  the  cry  of 
rowers  inciting  each  other's  ardor  in  their  laborious 
work ;  and  the  shout  of  charioteers  inciting  their 
horses.  It  is,  therefore,  generally  understood  in 
this  place  to  refer  to  the  acclamations  of  the  angelic 
hosts,  accompanying  their  Lord  to  judgment.  I 
think  there  is  every  reason  to  understand  it  in  this 
sense  ;  but  not,  perhaps,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
voice  of  Jesus  himself,  who  will  lead  these  heavenly 
leo-ions.  Whether  or  not  the  shout  of  Jesus  be 
included  in  this  term  here,  we  know  with  certainty, 
that  his  voice,  at  this  time,  wiU  be  heard  by  all. 
By  his  mighty  call,  he  will  raise  the  dead  from  the 
bowels  of  the  earth,  and  from  the  bottom  of  the 
seas.  To  those  who  were  amazed  at  his  speaking 
of  raising  the  dead,  while  on  earth,  he  says,  "Mar- 
vel not  at  this ;  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which 
all  that  are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  his  voice, 
and  shall  come  forth  :  they  that  have  done  good, 
unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have 


DAY    OF    JUDGMENT.  385 

doue  evil,  unto  the  resiUTection  of  damnation." — 
John  V.  28. 

"We  learn  from  tliis,  that  as  the  worlds  were 
made  by  his  word,  so  by  his  word  the  dead  will  be 
made  alive.  When  on  earth,  he  said  with  authority, 
"Lazarus,  come  forth,"  and  the  dead  man  heard 
his  voice  and  obeyed.  In  like  manner,  as  he 
descends  to  judgment,  he  will  awake  the  dead  with 
his  mighty  call. 

The  next  thing  to  which  our  attention  is  called 
in  this  description,  is  the  voice  of  an  archangel. 
Doctor  M'Knight  supposes,  that  as  John  the  Bap- 
tist was  sent  before  Jesus  to  cry,  "  Prepare  ye  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  path  straight,"  so  an 
archangel  w^ill  proclaim  his  advent,  and  call  the 
living  to  prepare  for  judgment.  But  whether  the 
archangel  will  have  anything  to  utter  different 
from  the  angelic  hosts,  and  if  so,  what  this  may  be, 
is  not  revealed,  and  therefore  cannot  be  discovered. 
As  this  voice  is  distinctly  mentioned,  there  is  no 
doubt  but  it  will  be  distinguished  in  some  way. 

We  are  next  presented  with  the  trum^Dct  of  God. 
The  voice  of  Jesus  raising  the  dead,  the  grand 
angelic  acclamation,  the  shout  of  the  archangel, 
and  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  will  conmience  the 
awful  proceedings  of  that  day.  We  learn  expressly 
from  1  Cor.  xv.  52,  that  the  sounding  of  this  trum- 
pet will  be  a  signal  for  the  dead  to  rise,  and  the 
living  to  be  changed. 


386  DAY    OF    JUDGMENT. 

Let  ns  now  pause  a  moment,  to  contemplate  the 
different  objects  in  this  awful  representation.  Look 
up  and  behold  the  Son  of  God  in  his  glory,  bursting 
the  heavens,  and  accompanied  by  all  the  angels  of 
God.  Hear  his  voice,  that  extends  round  the  globe, 
penetrates  the  grave,  and  raises  the  dead.  Listen 
to  the  shoutings  of  yon  terrible  army  hastening  to 
execute  vengeance  on  the  enemies  of  God.  Terri- 
ble is  the  shout  of  a  multitude.  How  terrible,  how 
sublime  the  shout  of  the  countless  hosts  of  God ! 
What  words  are  those  that  proceed  from  the  tre- 
mendous voice  of  yon  flaming  archangel?  Ye 
mighty  ministers  of  mercy  and  of  vengeance,  this 
day  affords  glorious  scope  for  your  zeal. 

Ye  children  of  men,  listen  to  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet  of  God.  Its  tones  are  solemn  and  loud. 
If  the  people  of  Israel  trembled  at  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet  at  Sinai,  how  much  more  terrible  is  the 
trumpet  of  judgment !  Ye  conquerors,  whose 
trumpets  have  stunned  the  hearts  of  trembling 
nations,  hear  yon  tremendous  blast;  it  summons 
you  to  account  for  the  seas  of  blood  which  you 
have  shed.  Ye  sons  of  blood,  ye  murderers  of  the 
human  race,  come  forth  to  judgment :  you  have 
waded  to  power  and  glory  through  the  blood  of 
your  fellow-creatures ;  you  have  flattered  your- 
selves with  the  hopes  of  deathless  fame.  This 
trumpet  ushers  in  the  day  of  retribution.  Great 
Julius,  behold  your  slaughtered  millions  rise  up  in 


DAY    OF   JUDG^^IKNT.  ^^^ 


iudgment  against  you!     Come  forth,  thou  Mace- 
donfaa  madman,  behold  all  the  nations  of  your 
proud  conquests !     The  day  of  vengeance  is  come, 
the  groans  of  a  bleeding  world  speak  your  sentence. 
Conie  forth,  all  ye  other  restless  sons  of  renown; 
do^yn  with  these  accursed  laurels;  yield  np  that 
dory  which  was  purchased  by  murdered  imhons. 
Blow,  mighty  angel,  blow!    "  How  long  shall  the 
childi-en  of  God  sleep  in  '-the  dark  and  narrow 
house «"    When  shall  they  arise  from  their  loath- 
some bed  ?     When  shall  they  be  invested  with  then- 
glorious  immortal  bodies  ?  -,    „,,      1     J 
It  is  usually  supposed,  that  the  words  "he  dead 
in  Christ  shall  rise  first,"  import  that  the  bodies  of 
dead  believers  will  be  raised  before  those  of  the 
wicked,   or  before   the  living  will   be    changed 
"But  the  dead  in  Christ,"  says  Mr.  Scott,  "shall 
rise  first,  and  be  rendered  incorruptible,  even  before 
their  brethren  be  changed  that  never  died.         in 
this  passage,"  says  Doctor  M'Kuight  "the  apostle 
teaches   that  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  be  raised 
before  the  living  are  changed."     As  appears  to  me, 
there  is  no  such  thing  taught  here.     "  The  dead  m 
Christ  shall  rise  first,"  does  not  mean  that  the  dead 
will  be  raised  before  the  living  will  be  changed; 
but  that  the  dead  will  be  raised  before  the    mng 
wiU  be  taken  away  to  meet  the  Lord     The  living 
saints  will  not  prevent  or  anticipate  the  dead;  tha„ 
is  they  will  not  be  taken  to  heaven  before  them. 


oSS  I>AY    OF    jrCGZilEXT. 

ISTor  sliall  tlie  dead  a  moment  anticipate  tlie  living. 
Li  tlie  same  instant,  the  one  will  be  changed,  and 
the  other  raised.  It  is  evident  that  the  apostle  is 
not  speaking  about  the  priority  of  the  time  of  rais- 
ing the  dead  with  respect  to  the  change  of  the 
living,  but  with  respect  to  the  ascent  of  the  living. 
Lnmediatelj  after  the  word  firsts  he  adds  "  then 
v»^e  who  are  alive  and  remain,  shall  be  caught  up 
toorether  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air."  Besides,  this  notion  is  directlj  con- 
trary to  1  Cor.  XV.  52,  in  which  we  are  taught,  that 
both  the  change  of  the  living  and  the  raising  of  the 
dead  Vvdll  take  place  at  the  sounding  of  the  trumpet, 
even  in  a  moment,  or  the  twinlding  of  an  eye. 
"  In  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the 
last  trump  :  (for  the  trumpet  shall  sound)  and  [or, 
both]  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and 
-\re  shall  be  changed."  Here  then  it  is  evident, 
that  the  dead  saints  will  be  raised,  and  the  living 
changed,  precisely  at  the  same  time ;  and  that 
time  is  to  be  at  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  and  its 
duration  no  more  than  the  twinkling  of  an  eye. 
The  resurrection  then  vdll  take  place  before  Christ 
descends,  even  as  soon  as  the  trumpet  begins  to 
sound.  Thus  every  eye  of  the  human  race  will  see 
him  as  he  comes.  There  is  no  reason,  mth  Doctor 
M'EJnight,  to  make  the  trumpet  of  God  the  same 
as  the  voice  of  Christ,  spoken  of,  John  v.  25.  The 
trumpet  being  sounded  by  Christ's  conmiand,  does 


DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  389 

not  make  it  tlie  voice  of  Clirist.  Tlie  real  voice  of 
Clirist  will  be  heard  as  distinctly  vdicn  lie  calls  the 
dead  to  life,  as  when  he  called  Lazarus  from  the 
grave.  Doctor  M'luiight  supposes  also,  that  the 
trmnpet  will  sound  a  second  time,  for  the  changing 
of  the  living,  after  the  raising  of  the  dead;  in 
which  account  the  second  sounding  is  called  the  last 
trumpet.  But  it  is  called  the  last  trumpet,  not 
with  respect  to  different  soundings  of  the  same 
trumpet,  but  with  reference  to  the  time  of  its 
sounding  at  the  last  day.  A  second  sounding 
would  not  be  a  second  trumpet.  Besides,  his 
scheme  would  need  a  third  sounding  for  raising  the 
wicked.  But  he  has  strangely  overlooked  the 
circumstance,  that  the  dead  are  raised,  as  well  as 
the  living  are  changed,  after  this  last  trumpet,  even 
according  to  his  own  translation.  "  In  a  moment, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trumpet ;  for 
it  shall  sound ;  and  then  the  dead  shall  be  raised 
incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed."  Here 
both  the  raising  of  the  dead,  and  changing  of  the 
living,  are  representing  as  following  the  last  trum- 
pet. The  same  writer  observes,  that  the  expression, 
"Tlie  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,"  demonstrates, _ 
that  the  wicked  are  not  to  be  raised  at  the  same 
time  with  the  righteous.  This  is  very  lame  demon- 
stration. The  import  and  reference  of  this  expres- 
sion I  have  shown  already.  K  the  Apostle  is  not 
speaking  of  a  priority  of  raising  the  dead  saints. 


890  DAY   OF   JUDGMENT. 

with  respect  to  the  change  of  the  living,  much  less 
with  respect  to  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked. 
He  is  not  speaking  at  all  of  unbelievers  ;  and  this 
v\'riter  makes  the  same  assertion.  He  strenuously 
contends,  that  this  passage  does  not  respect  the 
resurrection  of  the  wicked,  lest  it  should  mar  a 
favorite  theory  of  his,  that  the  bodies  of  unbe- 
lievers are  not  to  be  raised  immortal  or  imperisha- 
ble, but  that  they  will  be  totally  burned  up  in  the 
fire  that  consumes  the  world.  I  shall  at  present 
take  no  notice  of  this  theory,  as  it  does  not  respect 
my  subject. 

That  the  wicked  will  not  be  raised  the  same  time 
with  the  righteous,  he  endeavors  also  to  prove 
from  1  Cor.  xv.  23.  Every  man  is  to  be  raised  in 
his  proper  band.  But  it  is  evident  that  this  expres- 
sion, let  it  be  translated  as  it  will,  refers  not  to  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  It  respects  Christ  and 
his  people  :  "  Christ  the  first  fruits,  afterwards  they 
that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming."  The  wicked  are 
not  in  any  of  these  bands  or  divisions.  This  Vv^riter, 
however,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  holding  the 
opinion,  that  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  will 
any  considerable  time  precede  that  of  the  wicked. 
He  seems  to  make  it  merely  a  matter  of  form. 
"  Between  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous,"  says 
he,  "  and  their  being  caught  up,  the  living  are  to  be 
changed;  as  is  implied  in  their  not  anticipating 
them  who  are  asleep.     Also,  the  wicked  are  to  be 


DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  391 

raised  after  the  change  has  passed  on  the  living." 
But  there  is  no  foundation  for  this  opmion  in  those 
passages,  and  it  is  positively  contradicted  by 
others.  Li  John  v.  28,  both  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  are  represented  as  hearing  the  voice  of 
Jesus,  and  coming  both  together  out  of  the  graves. 
The  parable  of  the  virguis  also  supposes,  that  both 
the  foolish  and  the  wise  hear  the  cry,  "  Go  ye  out 
to  meet  him,"  at  the  same  instant.  Therefore,  the 
dead,  whether  righteous  or  wicked,  are  to  be 
raised,  and  the  living  saints  are  to  be  changed  at 
the  same  moment, 

Tlie  instantaneous  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and 
changing  of  the  living,  give  us  a  noble  idea  of 
Almighty  power.  How  confounding  is  the  thought 
of  innumerable  millions  of  rotton  carcases  all  rising 
to  life,  and  standing  on  the  earth  in  the  twinkling 
of  an  eye !  How  glorious  the  change  from  corrup- 
tion to  heavenly  brilliancy ! 

AYhen  the  dead  saints  are  raised,  and  the  living 
changed,  they  will  botli  be  taken  up  together  on 
clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air.  "Then  we 
which  are  alive  and  remain,  shall  be  caught  uj? 
together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air  ;  and  so  shall  we  be  ever  with  the  Lord." 
Some  have  supposed  that  the  saints  shall  ascend  to 
meet  their  Lord,  by  the  activity  of  their  new 
spiritual  bodies.  I  think  there  is  no  reason  to 
question,  that  the  glorified  bodies  of  the  saints  v/ill 


892  DAY    or   .JTDGMEXT. 

possess  locomotive  powers,  of  which  we  have  no 
conception.  Nevertheless,  the  phraseology  of  the 
passage  evidently  implies,  that  the  saints  will  be 
snatched  np  from  the  earth,  to  meet  the  Lord,  by 
some  external  force.  AYhat  this  will  be,  is  clear 
from  Matt.  xxiv.  31 :  "  And  he  shall  send  his 
angels  with  a  great  soimd  of  a  trumpet,  and  they 
shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds, 
from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other."  After  such 
declarations,  it  is  worse  than  foolish  to  speculate. 
As  the  saints  are  to  meet  the  Lord  in  his  descent, 
the  last  quoted  passage  imports,  that  some  of  the 
angels  that  accompany  him,  will  be  sent  before,  to 
assemble  and  bring  forward  his  j^eople.  The  instru- 
mentality of  the  angels  is  also  to  be  employed  in 
bringing  forward  the  wicked  to  judgment.  ''  The 
Son  of  Man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they 
shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that 
offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity ;  and  shall  cast 
them  into  a  furnace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be  wailino- 
and  gnashing  of  teeth.  The  angels  shall  come 
forth  and  sever  the  wicked  from  the  just."  Matt, 
xiii.  -il — 49.  These  passages  prove  also,  that  the 
resurrection  of  the  wicked  will  take  place  at  the 
same  time  with  that  of  the  righteous.  The  wicked 
ai'e  to  be  severed  at  the  resurrection  from  amon<x 
the  just,  and  before  the  gathering  of  the  elect. 
Matt.  xxiv.  29,  30.  All  the" tribes  of  the  earth  arc 
represented  as  mourning,  when  they  see  the  Son 


PAY   OF   JUDGEMENT.  393 

of  Man  coming  in  the  clonds  of  heaven,  with  i^ower 
and  great  glory.  ]^o  specnlations  can  be  permitted 
to  contradict  this  distinct  and  repeated  testimony. 
Doctor  M'&iight  is  of  opinion,  that  the  event 
referred  to,  1  Thess.  iv.  lY,  is  snbseqnent  to  the 
jndgment.  It  appears  clear  to  mo,  that  it  is  pre- 
vious to  it.  The  phraseology  is  suitable  to  the 
meeting  of  the  Lord  only.  What  the  common 
version  renders  meet,  he  translates  join,  but  with- 
out authority,  without  propriety.  It  imports  strictly 
to  meet  from  opposite  directions,  as  travellers  on 
the  highway,  and  is  so  used  in  the  ]^ew  Testament. 
Even  his  own  translations  forbid  his  interpretation. 
To  join  the  Lord,  cannot  be  applied  to  those  who 
have  been  with  him  all  the  time  of  the  judgment. 
The  things  that  are  said  to  be  joined,  must  have 
been  previously  separated. 

"From  this  verse  it  appears,"  says  the  same 
writer,  "  that  at  the  judgment,  Christ  will  fix  his 
seat  in  the  air."  I  perceive  no  foundation  for  this 
observation,  whether  the  passage  is  imderstood  to 
apply  to  the  meeting  of  the  Lord  before  the  judg- 
ment, or  the  accompanying  of  him  after  it.  I  draw 
a  different  inference  from  the  mention  of  the  place 
of  meeting.  When  they  are  said  to  meet  or  join 
in  the  air,  it  imports,  that  previously  they  were 
not  in  the  air.  Tliat  Christ  will  descend  to  the 
earth,  I  think  is  implied  in  the  general  i^hraseology 
of  Scripture  tliat  speaks  of  his  coming  again  ;  but 


394  DAY    or   JlDGIMEXT. 

whether  his  throne  of  judgment  will  he  fixed  in  the 
air  or  on  the  earth,  I  find  no  materials  npon  which 
to  found  an  opinion.  Some  have  gone  so  far  as 
to  point  out  the  jDarticuIar.  spot  of  earth  on  which 
his  tribunal  will  be  fixed.  This  is  the  worst  species 
of  novel  writing.  It  teaches  Christians  to  indulge 
opinions,  founded  not  on  his  word,  but  on  the  vain 
conjectures  of  human  wisdom.  Such  theories  are 
like  those  of  the  philosophers,  with  respect  to  the 
seat  of  the  soul  and  the  formation  of  ideas. 

On  the  throne  in  clouds,  Doctor  M'Knight  thus 
observes  :  '^^n  Scripture,  multitudes  of  angels  are 
called  clouds,  Mat.  xxiv.  30,  wherefore  caught  up 
in  clouds,  may  signify,  caught  up  bv  the  ministry 
of  angels."  Angels  can  never  be  called  clouds. 
In  the  passage  referred  to,  the  term  clouds  has  its 
proper  meaning.  The  Lord  will  indeed  come  with 
his  angels,  but  he  will  also  descend  uj^on  the  clouds. 
"  Clouds,  lilvewise,"  says  the  anthor,  "  signify  great 
multitudes  of  people. — Heb.  xii.  1.  According  to 
this  sense,  the  meaning  will  be,  caught  up  in  great 
numbers  at  once."  Xor  does  the  term  clouds, 
signify  great  multitudes  of  people.  Tlie  author 
confounds  the  signification  and  the  figurative  appli- 
cation of  words.  A  cloud  may,  metaphorically, 
signify  a  multitude  of  any  kind.  A  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses, is  a  multitude  of  witnesses  ;  but  cloud,  with- 
out any  words  to  show  its  figurative  application, 
has  always  its  proper  meaning.     According  to  the 


DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  395 

author's  mode  of  criticising,  the  phraseology  ought 
not  to  be  a  cloud  of  witnesses^  but  eloiuh.  ''  Where- 
fore, seeing  we  also  are  com^^assed  about  with  so 
great  clouds,  let  us,  c%c."  Such  principles  of  criti- 
cism, have  darkened  the  Scriptures  and  perplexed 
every  controversy.  What  is  it  the  Scriptures  will 
not  say  in  this  way  of  applying  their  language  ? 

We  have  another  very  a^vful  description  of  the 
coming  of  Jesus,  in  2  Thess.  i.  7 — 10.  '^And  to 
you  who  are  troubled,  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  lieaven  with  his  mighty 
angels  in  flaming  lire,  taking  vengeance  on  them 
that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  be  punished  with 
everlasting  destruction,  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  His  power,  when  He 
shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  His  saints,  and  to  be 
admired  in  all  them  that  believe  (because  our  testi- 
mony among  you  was  believed)  in  that  day." 

The  heavens  at  present  contain  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  hide  him  from  the  sight  both  of  his  friends  and 
enemies.  But  on  that  day,  he  will  be  revealed  for 
the  admiration  of  the  one,  and  the  punishment  of 
the  other.  The  angels,  in  the  midst  of  whom  he  is 
to  descend,  are  here  called  the  angels  of  his^  might. 
Tliey  are  the  mighty  ministers,  wlio  now  are  em- 
ployed in  executing  various  purposes  of  mercy  or 
of  judgment,  and  who  will  then  be  employed  in 
assembling  men  for  trial,  and  executing  the  dread- 


396  DAY    OF    JUDGMEX'I'. 

fill  sentence.  Wliat  a  mighty  host !  How  glorious, 
how  terrible  the  apj)earance  of  a  single  angel,  at 
the  tomb  of  this  same  Jesus !  "  And  behold,  there 
was  a  great  earthquake,  for  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
descended  from  heaven,  and  came  and  rolled  back 
the  stone  from  the  door,  and  sat  upon  it.  His 
coimtenance  was  like  lightning,  and  his  raiment 
white  as  snow ;  and  for  fear  of  him,  the  keepers 
did  shake  and  became  as  dead  men."  How  glorious 
then,  and  how  terrible  Avill  be  the  whole  hosts  of 
angels  on  the  great  day  of  the  Lord !  The  phrase 
flaming  fi-pe^  is  by  some  connected  with  the  preced- 
ing context,  and  by  others  with  the  succeeding.  If 
we  understand  the  passage  with  the  latter,  it  im- 
ports that  Jesus  will  inflict  punishment  on  the 
wicked  with  flammg  fire;  and  thus,  does  not  re- 
spect his  own  appearance.  I  am  inclined  to  connect 
it  with  the  preceding  context,  as  referring  to  the 
dreadful  appearance  of  Christ  surrounded  with 
flaming  fire.  Tlie  appearance  of  the  Lord  on  Mount 
Sinai,  was  accom]3anied  with  fire,  and  not  less  dread- 
ful, surely,  will  be  His  appearance  for  judgment. 
Indeed,  in  most  other  circumstances,  the  descrip- 
tion of  these  two  events  is  resemblant :  "  And  it 
came  to  pass  on  the  third  day,  in  the  morning,  that 
there  were  thunders  and  lightnings,  and  a  thick 
cloud  upon  the  mount,  and  the  voice  of  the  trumpet 
exceeding  loud :  so  that  all  the  people  that  were  in 
the  camp  trembled.     And  ]\[oses  brouglit  forth  the 


DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  397 

people  out  of  the  camp  to  meet  with  God,  and  they 
stood  at  the  nether  part  of  the  mount.  And  Mount 
Sinai  was  altogether  in  a  smoke  because  the  Lord 
descended  upon  it  in  iirc  ;  and  the  smoke  thereof 
ascended  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace,  and  the  whole 
mount  quaked  greatly.  And  the  sight  of  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  was  like  devouring  fire  on  the  top  of 
the  mount,  in  the  eyes  of  the  children  of  Israel." — 
Ex.  xix.  16—18.  xxiv.  IT. 

Upon  whom  is  the  Lord  to  execute  vengeance  on 
that  day  ?  Is  it  merely  upon  the  most  enormous 
sinners  ?  No,  but  upon  all  that  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  Gospel.  None  shall  escape  but  those 
who  have  believed  God's  testimony,  with  respect 
to  the  atonement  of  His  son.  This,  and  the  dread- 
ful nature  of  the  punishment,  which  occupy  so 
much  of  this  portion  of  Scripture,  are  not  to  the 
present  purpose.  But  can  we  pass  it  without 
noticing  that  it  denounces  wi'ath  against  the  great 
body  of  mankind.  If  this  is  a  hard  saying,  let  Jesus 
answer  for  it.  That  infernal  sectarian  spirit  that 
causes  some  to  delight  in  dealing  damnation  to  all 
who  do  not  adopt  their  peculiarities,  I  reject,  I  abhor. 
All  the  sons  of  Adam  are  my  brethren ;  but  I  can- 
not but  believe  the  plain  import  of  God's  declara- 
tions. I  dare  not  quarrel  with  the  divine  procedure. 
That  philanthropy  that  hopes  contrary  to  God's 
declaration,  is  Atheism.  "  He  that  believeth  shall 
be  saved,  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned." 


398  DAY    OF   JUDGMENT. 

It  appears  from.  Scripture,  that  tlie  fallen  angels 
also  will  stand  on  that  day  before  the  judgment- 
Beat  of  Christ.  The  Apostle  Peter  speaks  of  the 
angels  that  sinned,  as  being  cast  down  to  hell,  and 
delivered  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved 
unto  judgment. — 2  Pet.  ii.  4.  Jude  expresses  the 
same  thing.  The  Scriptures  also  teach,  that  the 
saints  are  to  be  admitted  to  join  the  Lord  in  the 
judgment  of  wicked  men  and  angels.  Doctor 
M'Ejiight,  however,  warmly  controverts  this  com- 
mon oj)inion,  but  I  think,  without  being  able  to 
overturn  the  foundation  on  which  it  rests.  Tlie 
passage  on  which  tliis  opinion  is  built,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  the 
first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  :  "  Do  ye  not  know, 
that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ?  Know  ye 
not  that  we  shall  judge  angels?"  The  expression, 
"  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world,"  he  thus  para- 
phrases :  "  Do  ye  not  know,  that  the  inspired 
teachers  among  you,  judge  the  world  by  the  laws 
of  the  Gospel  which  they  promulgate  ?  "  But  this 
interpretation  is  altogether  wild.  The  term  saints, 
is  ap23ropriated  to  believers  in  general,  and  can 
never  be  employed  to  designate  inspired  teachers. 
He  observes  in  a  note  :  "  this  name,  though  com- 
mon to  all  who  believe  in  the  true  God,  is  some- 
times a23propriated  to  the  spiritual  men  in  the 
Christian  church,  who  were  inspired  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  Gospel." — Col.  i.  26.     But  the 


DAY    OF   jn)GMENT.  399 

passage  on  wlilcli  lie  rests  his  proof,  Las  not  the 
least  intention  of  giving  him  its  countenance.  Tlie 
mystery  formerly  hidden,  now  manifest  to  the 
saints,  is  the  Gospel  which  is  made  known  to  all 
the  saints. 

On  the  words,  "jndge  the  world,"  he  observes: 
"  Here  St.  Panl  told  the  Corinthians,  that  agreeably 
to  Christ's  promise  to  the  Apostles,  Matt.  xix.  28, 
they  Avere  at  that  time  actually  judging  or  ruling 
the  world  by  the  laws  of  the  Gospel  which  tliey 
preached  to  the  world."  But  the  Apostles  cannot 
be  meant  here :  it  is  expressly  asserted  of  the 
Corinthian  believers,  "and  if  the  world  shall  be 
judged  hy  youP  The  world  then  we  see,  is  to  be 
judged  by  the  Corinthian  saints  as  w^ell  as  the 
Apostles  ;  besides,  this  interpretation  destroys  the 
argument.  How  does  the  fact,  that  the  Apostles 
are  now  judging  the  world  by  their  doctrine,  prove 
that  the  Corinthians  should  settle  their  own  dis- 
23utes  among  themselves  ?  We  Apostles,  declare 
the  judgment  of  the  world  ;  therefore,  ye  believers, 
may  judge  of  the  temporal  concerns  among  your- 
selves. Is  this  argument  ?  That  it  is  not  inspired 
men  who  are  meant,  is  clear  from  the  fourth  verse : 
"  If  then  ye  have  judgments  pertaining  to  things 
of  this  life,  set  them  to  judge  who  are  least  esteemed 
in  the  church."  Surel/  inspired  men  could  not  be 
of  this  number.  Tlie  opinion  that  this  direction 
refers  to  the  lowest  order  of  what  he  calls  spiritual 


400  DAY    OF   JUDGIMEi^IT. 

men,  is  so  exceedingly  ridiculous,  as  not  to  merit 
refutation.  The  least  esteemed  in  tlie  cliurch,  must 
be  the  least  esteemed  of  all,  and  not  of  a  certain 
class  in  the  church. 

lYitli  respect  to  Mat.  xix.  28,  it  does  not  appear 
to  import,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  now 
judges  the  world.  The  Apostles  are  novr  testifying 
to  the  world  of  Jesus.  If  men  believe  not,  this 
word  will  condemn  them  at  the  last  day.  But  this 
passage  appears  to  refer  to  the  personal  observa- 
tion of  the  Apostles  on  the  day  of  judgment.  "  In 
the  resurrection,  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  on  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  This 
author's  objections  to  the  opinion,  that  the  saints 
will  join  with  their  Lord  in  the  judgment,  are  con- 
tained in  the  following  extract :  "  With  respt^ct  to 
the  idea  which  many  entertain,  of  the  saints  being 
Christ's  assessors  when  he  judges  the  world,  I 
observe,  that  it  is  rej)ugnant  to  all  the  accounts 
given  of  the  general  judgment ;  and  particularly 
to  our  Lord's  0"wn  account  of  that  great  event, 
Mat.  XXV.,  where  the  righteous  are  rej)resented  as 
all  standino;  before  his  tribunal  alonir  with  the 
wicked,  and  as  receiving  their  sentence  at  the  same 
time  with  them."  I  apprehend,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  repugnancy  betv^een  this  opinion  and 
those  accounts.  Though  the  righteous  are  to  stand 
before  the  Lord  along  with  the  wicked,  yet,  the 


DAY    v)F    JUDGMENT. 


*  401 


former  being  judged  lirst  and  acquitted,  may  join 
in  the  judgment  of  wicked  men  and  angels.     He 
adds,  "  besides,  for  what  pnrpose  are  the  saints  to 
be   Christ's  assessors  at  the  judgment?     Is  it  to 
give  him  counsel  ?     or  only  to  assent  to  the  sen- 
tences he  will  pass  on  the  wicked  ?     Surely  not  the 
former,  and  for  the  latter,  why  should  their  assent 
be  necessary,  more  than  the  assent  of  the  holy 
angels  1 "     Li  reply,  I  ask,  why  is  there  a  day  of 
judgment  ?     Why  will  Christ  permit  his  people  to 
reign  with  him?    Why  has  he  mai^  them  one 
with  himself?     Are  we  entitled  to  ask  a  reason, 
before  we  admit  God's  plain  declarations  ?     Will 
any  one  who  knows  the   dignity  to  which  Christ 
has  exalted  our  nature,  ask  why  believers  shall  be 
set  above  angels?     If  they  are  with  their  Lord, 
why  should  they  not  sit  with  him  ?     For  the  con- 
fession of  his  word,  they  have  been  condemned  by 
the  world.     Many  of  them  have  stood  before  kmgs 
and  rulers  for  his  sake,  and  all  of  them  have  been 
hated  and  despised  by  all  men,  for  professing  then- 
confidence  of  salvation,  thi-ough  faith,  in  his  name, 
and  for  walking  in  his  commandments.     In  that 
day,  things  will   be   reversed.     Kings,   and   con- 
querors,  and   statesmen,   and   philosophers,   must 
stand  before  Christ  and  his  followers.    Those  who 
have  honored  Jesus,  he  will  honor.     1  es,  ye  proud 
sons  of  science,  ye  must  stand  before  poor  Joseph, 
the  London  simpleton.     This  is  a  glorious  promise. 


402  DAY  OF  JUDG:^^<:NT. 

and  therefore  not  lightly  to  be  given  up.  Is  it  no 
encouragement  to  bear  the  reproaches,  the  mock- 
ings,  the  calumnies  of  the  world,  tliat  we  are  to  be 
admitted  to  a  seat  VN-ith  Christ  in  the  judgment  of 
this  great  day  ?  Kow  we  weep,  but  then  shall  we 
laugh ;  but  wo  unto  you  who  laugh  now,  for  ye 
shall  mourn.  The  expression,  "  do  ye  not  know 
that  we  shall  judge  angels  ? "  this  author  para- 
phrases thus :  "  do  ye  not  know  that  we  declare 
the  judgment  of  the  evil  angels  ?  "  Was  ever  gloss 
more  violenl%nd  absurd?  Judging  the  angels,  is 
only  declaring  that  they  shall  be  judged.  To 
relate  a  fact,  is  then  the  same  thing  as  to  perform 
it ;  besides,  what  argument  is  in  the  words  in  this 
interpretation  ?  We  Apostles  declare,  that  the  evil 
angels  shall  be  judged,  therefore,  you  Christians  in 
Corinth,  have  a  right  to  settle  your  own  disputes 
about  the  affairs  of  this  world,  without  going  to 
law.  Again,  if  it  is  the  Apostles  who  are  said  to 
judge  angels  by  their  declaration,  it  is  the  Apostles 
who  have  a  right  to  judge  the  things  pertaining  to 
this  life  ;  for  both  assertions  respect  the  same  per- 
sons. "  If  we  judge  angels,  how  much  more, 
ttc."  This,  therefore,  would  speak  nothing  of 
the  duty  of  Christians  to  settle  their  disputes  with- 
out going  to  law,  the  subject  which  the  Apostle 
w^as  treating.  In  no  sense  are  the  evil  angels 
re-judged  by  the  Apostles ;  nor  will  the  apostolical 
writings  be  the  standard  by  w^hich  they  are  to 


DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  403 

be  judged.  Tlie  Apostles,  as  far  as  I  have  yet 
learned,  do  not  even  declare  by  what  sins  the 
fallen  angels  haye  rendered  themselyes  obnoxious 
to  judgment.  Tlieologians,  however,  have  happily 
supplied  this  curious  piece  of  information.  It  was 
well  known  to  Milton. 

We  learn  from  the  Apostle  Peter  that  in  the  day 
of  judgment,  the  earth  and  the  heavens  also  will  be 
destroyed  by  fire.  By  the  Word  of  God,  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  were  first  made  :  "  But  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  which  are  now,  by  the  same 
word  are  kept  in  store,  reserved  unto  fire  against 
the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly 
men." — 2  Pet.  iii.  7.  He  gives  us  a  tremendous 
description  of  this  destruction,  in  the  following 
words  :  "  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a 
thief  in  the  night,  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall 
pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall 
melt  with  fervent  heat ;  the  earth  also,  and  the 
works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up." 

What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  heavens  that 
are  to  be  burned?  Doctor  M'Knight  supposes, 
that  it  is  merely  our  atmosphere.  In  my  opinion, 
it  includes  also  all  the  heavenly  bodies.  It  is  true, 
that  the  atmosphere  is  called  heaven  (Gen.  i.  8,) ; 
but  here,  the  term  is  not  heaven,  but  heavens ; 
which  includes  the  atmosphere  and  starry  firma- 
ment, in  contradistinction  from  which,  the  glorious 
place  of  the  Divine  presence  is  called  the  third 


404  DAY   OF   JUDGMENT. 

lieayen.  Tlie  latter  cannot  be  included ;  therefore, 
the  term,  heavens^  must  apply  to  the  first  and 
second  heavens. 

Science,  contemplating  the  number,  magnitude, 
and  distance  of  the  fixed  stars,  derides  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  illiterate  fisherman,  who  represents 
the  catastrophe  of  our  insignificant  planet,  as  involv- 
ing the  ruin  of  so  many  systems  and  worlds:  She 
has  discovered,  that  these  sparkling  globes  are 
scattered  in  countless  multitudes  throughout  the 
immense  regions  within  her  view;  that  each  of 
them  is  a  sun,  the  centre  of  a  system,  ronnd  which 
other  worlds,  with  myriads  of  inhabitants,  are 
revolving.  Shall  all  those  immense  orbs,  jrith  all 
their  inhabitants,  probably  more  respectable  than 
man,  perish  at  the  destruction  of  this  molehill  that 
we  inhabit  ?  [NTo,  no ;  the  discordance  of  the 
Scriptures  with  the  sublime  doctrines  of  philoso- 
phy, and  the  discoveries  of  astronomy,  shows  that 
the  writers  were  ignorant  imposters.  Impudent 
soceress  !  how  dare  you  assume  such  a  tone  ?  By 
what  evidence  do  3'ou  justify  your  arrogant  pre- 
tensions ?  Presumest  thou  to  confront  the  best 
evidence  of  testimony  with  thy  vain  conjectures  ? 
Thon  art  an  imposter ;  thou  art  falsely  called 
Science.  All  the  discoveries  of  the  true  owner  of 
that  name,  are  to  tlie  honor  of  the  Lord  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Thon  sayest  thou  hast  discovered  that  the 
stars  are  numerons  beyond  conception,  immense  in 


DAY  OF  jrDG:yn-:xT.  405 

size  and  distance.  Well,  madam,  so  nmcli  tlie 
more  giorj  to  Jehovah ;  so  much  more  extent  to 
the  dominions  of  His  redeemed  people.  Thou 
sayest  that  the  planets  of  system  are  inhabited  as 
well  as  the  earth,  and  that  round  the  stars  there 
are  worlds  thickly  peopled.  Stop,  Mrs.  Impudence, 
thou  sayest  more  than  thou  canst  prove ;  true 
science  believes  nothing  without  evidence.  All 
thy  discoveries  can  prove  no  lAore  than  that  from 
analogy  it  is  probable  they  are  inhabited.  The 
man  of  God  has  no  objection  that  there  should  be 
innumerable  millions  of  worlds,  all  the  residence 
of  happy  creatures ;  but  he  is  not  a  philosopher 
more  than  a  Christian,  who  founds  belief  on  con- 
jecture. K  a  single  clear  passage  of  the  Word  of 
God  was  inconsistent  with  the  opinion  that  the 
heavenly  bodies  are  inhabited,  I  would  contempt- 
tuously  reject  tliat  opinion,  and  sternly  look  defi- 
ance into  the  face  of  all  the  astronomers  on  the 
earth.  But  I  see  nothing  in  the  most  extravagant 
guesses  of  astronomy,  were  they  even  true,  that 
forbids  us  to  believe  with  the  Scriptures,  that  all 
the  stars  of  heaven  v/ill  be  burned  in  the  general 
conflagration.  This  earth  is  infinitely  more  impor- 
tant than  any  world,  as  the  residence  of  man. 
Human  nature  is  exalted,  not  merely  above  that  of 
the  stellar  inhabitants,  but  above  that  of  every 
created  being.  Even  in  heaven  man  will  have  no 
.superior  but  God.    The  meanest  of  Christ's  people, 


4:06  DAY   OF   JUDGJIEAT. 

as  one  witli  himself,  must  reign  over  all  creatures. 
The  glasses  of  the  astronomer  cannot  discover  to 
him  the  glory  of  the  person  and  works  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  the  most  illiterate  Christian  has  dis- 
covered in  the  book  of  Cod.  Ignorant  of  the  high 
destinies  of  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord,  he  stumbles 
at  the  comparative  importance  of  this  world  in  the 
accounts  of  Scripture,  after  he  has  been  viewing 
the  bright  worlds  dispersed  through  the  immense 
fields  of  ether. 

Theologians  who  wish  to  keep  in  the  good  graces 
of  both  science  and  Scripture,  are  ever  endeavoring 
to  mediate  between  these  rivals.  Many  a  stretch 
they  make  to  reconcile  their  discordant  claims. 
Philosophy  is  haughty,  and  must  be  flattered  and 
soothed  into  reconciliation.  The  Scriptures  are 
pliant  and  submissive,  and  must  soften  and  explain. 
Many  a  fine  figure  has  been  invented  to  give  a 
philosophical  turn  to  the  dictates  of  inspiration. 
On  this  subject,  divines  have  made  the  Scriptures 
acknowledge  to  philosophy,  not  only  that  the  stars 
are  not  to  be  burned  with  the  earth,  but  that  they 
were  not  made  at  the  creation  of  the  world.  "  In 
all  probability,"  says  Doctor  M'Kiiight,  "  Moses, 
in  his  history,  describes  the  creation  of  our  plane- 
tary system  only.  For  though  (Gen.  i.  16,)  he 
says,  '  God  made  two  great  lights,  the  greater  light 
to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the 
nighty  He  made  the  stars  also?   The  words  He  made, 


DAY    uF -JUDGMENT. 


407 


found  in  the  latter  clause,  arc  not  in  tlie  original. 
Baylor,  therefore,  thinks  the  translation  should  be, 
the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night  with  the  stars— 
that  is,  jointly  with  the  stars,  they  having  been 
made  long  before ;  for  it  is  the  opinion  of  many, 
that  the  stars  are  much  more  ancient  than  the 
earth,  and  shall  remain  after  it  is  destroyed."  A 
philosopher  would  have  said  at  once,  without  cere- 
mony, that  this  account  shows  Moses  to  have  been 
an  ignorant  imposter ;  but  a  commentator  can  do 
the  business  more  respectfully.  The  translation 
may  be  altered.  It  may  ;  but  never  can  be  justly 
made  to  say  anything  different  from  ours.  Lite- 
rally it  is,  "  and  the  stccrsP  The  elliptical  words 
are  necessarily  supplied  from  the  connection,  and 
can  be  no  other  than  He  made. 

This  passage  affords  other  evidence  that  the  stars 
will  be  burned  in  the  day  of  judgment.  Parkhurst 
produces  satisfactory  authority,  that  the  word  trans- 
lated elements,  denotes  also  the  heavenly  bodies, 
sun,  moon,  and  stars  ;  and  many  circumstances  in 
this  connexion  incline  me  so  to  understand  it  here. 
1.  The  only  other  sense  in  which  the  word  could 
be  used  here,  is  that  of  first  principles.  But  if  that 
were  its  meaning,  I  think  it  would  have  been 
applied  also  to  the  earth  as  well  as  the  heavens. 
Would  the  Apostle  speak  of  the  first  prmciples  of 
the  atmosphere,  and  not  of  those  of  the  earth? 
Estius,  indeed,  understands  the  word  as  denoting 


408  DAY    OF    JUDGMEXT. 

tlie  elements  of  wliicli  this  terraqueous  globe  is 
compassed;  but  tliis  camiot  be  its  signiJication. 
Would  the  Apostle  first  speak  of  the  dissolution  of 
tlie  elements,  or  first  principles  of  the  earth,  and 
afterwards  of  the  burning  of  the  earth  ?  The  ele- 
ments of  the  earth  hy  hu-rning  shall  he  dissolved^ 
and  the  earth  shall  he  hnrned^  would  be  intolerable. 
M'Knight  is  of  opinion,  that  in  this  verse  the  Apos- 
tle is  speaking  of  the  electrical  matter,  the  sul- 
23hureous  vapors,  the  clouds,  and  whatever  else 
floats  in  the  air,  together  with  the  air  itself.  But 
these  are  not  the  elements  of  the  atmosphere  in 
any  sense ;  nor  do  I  think  that  the  Apostle  would 
bring  forward,  as  a  thing  striking  and  terrible,  the 
mere  chemical  dissolution  of  the  atmosphere. 

2.  There  are  no  elements  in  the  atmosphere, 
according  to  the  ancient  chemistry.  The  ancients 
counted  earth,  air,  fire,  and  water,  the  fii-st  princi- 
ples of  all  bodies.  In  the  atmosphere  there  are 
different  kinds  of  air  ;  but  ancient  philosophy  was 
ignorant  of  this.  jS'ow,  if  the  Apostle  had  been 
speaking  of  first  principles,  he  would  have  used  the 
word  in  its  received  acceptation,  and  would  not 
have  spoken  of  the  elements  of  the  atmosphere. 

3.  It  is  not  said  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
shall  be  dissolved  into  their  elements,  but  that  the 
elements  themselves  shall  be  dissolved.  IS'ow,  a 
thing  may  be  dissolved  into  its  elements ;  but  ele- 
ments are  not  dissolvent.     Almighty  power  might 


DAY    OF    .irDGMKX'l'.  409 

annihilate  the  very  elements  of  all  things ;  but  this 
would  not  be  dissolving  them.  However,  matter 
is  not  to  be  annihilated,  but,  by  burning,  to  be 
dissolved. 

4.  The  word  qrcU  will  apply  to  tlie  heavenly 
bodies,  not  to  air  or  elements ;  the  decomposition 
of  air  is  not  melting.  We  would  not  say,  that 
water  is  melted  by  boiling,  much  less  that  air  is 
melted  into  its  first  principles. 

o.  The  phraseology  of  the  passage  agrees  best 
with  this  interpretation.  It  is  said,  that  the  earth 
and  the  works  therein  shall  be  burned.  If  the 
earth  be  burned,  the  works  on  it  shall  be  burned 
of  course ;  but  for  emphasis,  this  is  pleonastically 
expressed.  A  thing  that  is  imj^lied,  is  distinctly 
presented  to  the  mind,  to  deepen  the  impression, 
and  increase  the  awfulness  of  the  description.  In 
like  manner,  the  term  heavens  includes  the  heavenly 
bodies ;  but  the  image  presented  to  the  imagination, 
is  rendered  more  grand  and  impressive  by  specifi- 
cation. M'Knight  makes  the  term  heavens  signify 
the  atmosphere,  and  elements  signify  the  atmosphere, 
with  the  vapors,  &c.,  suspended  in  it.  This  is 
j^leonasm  of  the  worst  kind^ — the  atmosj)here  shall 
he  dissolved  hy  hurning^  and  the  atmosjyhere  loith 
its  vapors^  (&c.,  shall  he  also  dissolved. 

So  then,  astronomers,  you  will  not  be  able  to 
save  the  grand  objects  of  your  contemplations  from 
this  general  conflagration.     Pursue  your  disco ve- 


410  DAY    OF   JUDGMENT. 

ries  with  ardor ;  every  new  star  added  to  the  list 
will  augment  the  splendor  of  this  magnificent 
illumination. 

Let  us  now  pause  and  contemplate  this  wonderful 
spectacle.  Behold  the  flames  that  issue  from  in- 
numerable millions  of  worlds.  Hear  the  terrible 
noise  of  the  burning  heavens,  thundering  into  dis- 
solution. You  giddy  throng,  come  out  from  your 
gay  assemblies  to  view  those  dreadful  concomi- 
tants of  your  perdition.  How  many  brilliant  lustres 
are  lighted  up  in  the  great  assembly  to  which  you 
are  called!  This  day  commences  the  complete 
misery  of  all  that  know  not  God,  and  obey  not  the 
Gospel.  This  terrible  scene  is  only  the  porch 
to  hell. 

From  the  circumstance  of  the  time  of  the  judg- 
ment being  called  a  day,  it  would  be  rash,  abso- 
solutely  to  limit  it  to  the  duration  of  one  of  our 
days ;  yet  this  term,  so  frequently  applied  to  it, 
appears  inconsistent  with  the  supposition,  that  it 
will  have  a  duration  of  any  considerable  time. 
Some  have  thought  that  it  shall  last  a  thousand 
years  ;  and  as  the  multiplicity  of  business  seems  to 
them  to  demand  such  a  length  of  time,  they  have 
contrived  to  find  it  in  the  Word  of  God :  "  One 
day  is  to  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years."  This  pas- 
sage, however,  cannot  bear  on  the  point  at  all. 
Whatever  be  its  import,  it  does  not  say  that  one 
day  is  a  thousand  years,  much  less  does  it  say  that 


DAY    OF    JUDGMENT.  411 

the  day  of  the  Lord  is  a  thousand  years.  It  is 
called  the  last  day;  and  this  seems  plainly  to 
import,  that  it  is  the  last  of  those  days  allotted  to 
this  world.  It  is  called  the  day  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  day  of  Christ,  because  all  the  other  days  of  this 
world,  since  the  fall,  have  been  given  to  man.  He 
has  been  permitted  to  work  all  iniquity,  as  if  there 
v\'ere  no  God  to  rule  over  him.  But  this  will  be 
the  day  of  God,  in  which  he  will  have  to  account 
for  all  his  works  of  unrighteousness. 

To  many  it  apj)ears  absurd,  that  the  judgment 
should  be  transacted  in  a  very  short  space  of  time. 
Were  the  trials  to  proceed  as  in  our  courts,  ten 
thousand  years  would  be  insufficient  to  finish  them. 
To  expedite  the  business.  Doctor  M'Knight  has 
contrived  to  discriminate  the  righteous  from  the 
wicked  at  the  general  judgment,  not  by  any  formal 
inquiry  into  the  character  and  actions  of  each  indi- 
vidual, but  by  the  kind  of  body  in  which  each  will 
appear.  But  this  would  not  be  a  judgment.  The 
dress  of  a  culprit  is  not  his  trial.  Besides,  it  is 
mere  hypothesis,  against  which  also  many  passages 
of  Scripture  seem  to  militate.  Indeed,  almost  every 
j^assage  that  refers  to  the  subject,  seems  to  take  for 
granted,  that  particular  crimes  will  be  charged. 
For  every  idle  word,  men  shall  give  account.  The 
dead  are  said  to  be  judged  out  of  the  things  written 
in  the  books  ;  and  though  this  be  figurative,  it  still 
implies  particular  investigation. 


412  DAY    Of    JUDGMEiS'T. 

How,  then,  can  this  be  done  in  a  moderate  space 
of  time  ?  All  I  would  reply  is,  that  what  is  impos- 
sible with  man,  is  possible  with  God.  He  can 
make  us  perceive  at  once  a  million  of  facts,  as 
easily  as  we  now  perceive  one,  according  to  our 
present  constitution.  The  trial  of  each  individual 
of  the  whole  human  race  miMit  be  ffoino;  on  at  the 
same  time ;  the  whole  might  be  perceived  by  all, 
and  the  business  might  be  finished,  not  in  a  day, 
but  in  an  hour.  Men  err,  not  knowing  the  Scrip- 
tures, neither  the  power  of  God.  Instead  of  receiv- 
ing the  plain  testimony  of  the  Word  of  God,  they 
spend  their  time  in  reconciling  apparent  incon- 
sistencies by  their  own  vain  speculations.  Upon 
every  point  we  should  ask,  what  saith  the  Scrip- 
tures? When  we  have  found  its  answer,  let  us 
receive  it,  however  improbable  in  the  estimation 
of  human  wisdom. 

Disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  let  this  great  day  he 
much  in  your  contemplations.  Cherish  your  hearts 
with  the  prospects  it  presents.  While  this  is 
before  you,  the  concerns  of  this  world  will  appear 
trifling,  and  your  sorrows  will  be  mitigated.  To 
the  world  it  may  appear  as  a  dream,  but  to  you  it 
is  a  comforting  reality.  This  will  be  your  day,  as 
well  as  that  of  your  Lord.  You  are  now  the  fools, 
but  on  that  day  you  will  appear  to  have  been  wise. 
Remember  that  it  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  a 
Christian,  "  to  love  his  appearing."     All  who  are 


DAY  OF  jldg:mi:nt.  413 

taught  bj  the  Gospel,  are  "  looking  for  that  blessed 
hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God, 
even  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  They  who  hate 
him  may  dread  his  coming ;  but  the  loving,  faith- 
ful bride  must  rejoice  in  the  coming  of  the  bride- 
groom. Fly  round,  then,  ye  sluggish  years  ;  com- 
plete the  destined  period  of  this  world's  duration. 
Time,  roll  on,  roll  on ;  haste,  make  way  for  the 
comins:  of  our  Lord.  O  !  when  shall  we  behold  on 
earth  his  lovely  comitenance  ? 


OBSERVATIONS 


INCOMPREHENSIBILITY  OF  GOD. 


The  wise  men  of  this  world  have  labored  to 
make  themselves  ignorant  of  things  Imown  to  every 
child,  and  have  x^retended  to  fathom  the  deep 
things  of  God.  While  they  have  doubted  and 
even  denied  the  existence  of  the  world,  they  have 
dared  to  soar  in  regions  of  impious  conjecture  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  human  faculties.  They 
have  arrived  at  the  utmost  verge  of  the  opposite 
extremes  of  madness.  Some  have  denied  all  cer- 
tainty of  knowledge,  and  others  have  presumed  to 
guess  at  the  manner  of  the  existence  and  know- 
ledge of  the  incomprehensible  Jehovah.  Kejecting 
the  knowledge  divinely  afforded  them,  they  specu- 
late on  the  secrets  of  inscrutable  wisdom. 

The  character  of  the  God  of  the  universe,  even 
as  discoverable  by  the  light  of  reason,  is  invested 
with  attributes  which  the  highest  human  intellect 
in  vain  attempts  to  comprehend.     Our  assent  is 


416  lA'COMPIiEllEXSIEILlTY    OF    GOD. 

commanded  as  perfectly  as  by  mathematical  axioms, 
yet  om*  mind  recoils  at  the  result  of  its  own  opera- 
tions. We  not  only  cannot  but  admit  that  such 
things  are  so,  but  we  see  the  contrary  to  be  absurd, 
contradictory,  and  impossible.  At  the  same  time 
when  we  attempt  to  contemplate  the  truth  which 
forces  itself  on  our  belief,  we  are  utterly  con- 
founded ;  we  find  it  to  be  altogether  beyond  the 
grasp  of  the  human  mind. 

That  God  is  immense  and  eternal  is  admitted  by 
every  one  w^ho  believes  in  His  existence.  Indeed 
immensity  and  eternity  are  attributes  essential  to 
the  natm-e  of  God.  To  question  this  is  to  doubt 
His  existence,  for  w^hatever  is  limited  in  time  or 
place  caimot  be  a  perfect  bemg.  If  there  was  a 
time  when  God  was  not,  then  He  must  either  have 
been  the  author  of  His  own  being,  or  He  must  have 
been  produced  by  some  other  cause.  Both  of  these 
supj)Ositions  are  absurd.  It  is  impossible  that  any- 
thhig  could  be  the  cause  of  its  own  existence,  and 
nothing  can  be  supposed  to  be  before  Him,  as  the 
cause  of  His  being.  However  far  we  trace  back 
the  cause  of  created  existence,  we  must  at  last 
come  to  a  cause  that  is  uncaused,  or  the  great 
First-Cause  of  all  things.  If  then  there  is  a  God, 
He  must  be  eternal.  But  that  there  is  a  God  is  as 
cleai*  as  there  is  a  world.  As  something  now  exists, 
there  must  have  been  something  previously  exist- 
ing  to   confer    that   existence.      Kothing   cannot 


INCOMrKtllEiN-SIBlLlTY    OF    GOD.  417 

create  something.  Tliis  is  tlie  necessary  conclusioii 
of  reason.  It  is  also  the  dictate  of  inspiration. 
The  Apostle  Paul  shows  that  the  Gentile  world 
was  without  excuse.  For  the  invisible  things  of 
God  are  clearly  seen  from  the  thinsrs  that  are  made, 
even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead. 

That  God  is  immense  is  equally  clear  from  the 
light  of  reason.  If  there  be  a  place  where  God  is 
not,  then  in  that  place  it  may  be  said  there  is  no 
God.  If  His  presence  is  bounded  then  He  is  an 
imperfect  being,  which  is  inconsistent  with  our 
idea  of  God.  On  this  supposition  He  is  not  as 
great  even  as  the  human  mind  could  conceive  Him 
to  be,  for  whatever  admits  of  limits  might  be 
greater.  And  if  God's  presence  admits  of  limits, 
there  is  actually  something  greater.  Sj)ace  admits 
of  no  limits,  and  if  God  fills  not  the  immensity  of 
space,  space  is  greater  than  God,  which  is  absurd. 

Let  us  then  try  to  contemplate  a  Being  immense 
and  eternal,  and  we  shall  find  that  we  may  as  well 
try  to  look  on  the  meridian  sun  w4th  the  naked 
eye.  Is  there  anything  in  the  revealed  character 
of  God  more  beyond  the  grasp  of  human  intellect? 
When  once  an  Almighty  and  an  all-wise  being  is 
supposed  to  exist,  we  have  no  difiiculty  in  con- 
ceiving how  He  could  make  everything  that  is  in 
the  universe,  and  everything  we  can  suppose  possi- 
ble ?  But  how  can  we  conceive  of  a  being  existing 
from  eternity  ?     Our  minds  can  go  back,  and  back, 


4:18  INCOMPEEIIENJilBILITY    OF    GOD. 

and  back,  one  seep  after  another,  until  we  arrive 
at  the  utmost  limit  of  any  given  time,  but  still  at 
last  we  come  to  a  point  where  we  must  stop,  and 
when  we  examine  that  point  it  is  as  far  from  eter- 
nity as  where  we  started.  When  we  have  gone 
back  as  far  as  the  mind  can  reach,  still  there  is  an 
eternity  behind  us  undiminished  by  anything  we 
have  taken  from  it.  To  form  an  idea  of  a  being 
without  a  beginning  is  a  task  no  less  difficult  than 
the  creation  of  a  world.  We  have  no  difficulty  in 
conceiving  that  Almighty  power  may  do  anything, 
but  whence  is  the  origin  of  power  ?  How  can  we 
conceive  power  without  an  engine  ?  A  child  will 
admit  that  God  hath  made  all  things,  and  this 
•relieves  his  mind  from  its  labor  in  conceiving  how 
they  began  to  exist.  But  he  cannot  stop  here,  the 
thought,  how  God  began  to  exist  Himself,  suggests 
itself  to  his  mind,  presses  on  him,  and  overwhelms 
him.  When  he  is  told  that  God  never  began  to 
exist,  he  may  stop  his  inquiries,  but  he  has  received 
no  light  that  can  satify  reason.  He  is  delivered 
from  his  perplexity  only  by  ceasing  to  think  on  the 
subject.  He  receives  the  report  just  on  the  san:he 
evidence  that  the  Christian  believes  what  the 
Scriptures  testify  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  He  can  no  more  conceive 
how  God  never  began  to  exist,  than  he  can  con- 
ceive how  one  God  subsists  in  three  persons.  And 
the  child  is  put  on  a  level  with  the  greatest  philo- 


INCOMPliEIiJ:X:<IBlT.nY    OF    GOD.  4:19 

soplier  on  this  subject.  The  perplexing  question 
about  the  unorio^inatiuii;  existence  of  God  that 
occurs  to  the  child  is  perpetually  presenting  itself 
to  the  mind  of  every  man  that  thinks.  The  only 
way  to  get  relief  from  it  is  to  cease  to  listen  to  it. 
In  matters  within  the  comprehension  of  the  human 
mind,  difficulties  will  be  gradually  overcome  by 
labor  and  study.  But  here  to  labor  and  study  is  to 
increase  our  perplexity.  Too  much  study  of  this 
point,  would  literally  make  a  man  mad. 

Should  any  man  be  inclined  to  deliver  himself 
from  these  confounding  thoughts^  by  taking  refuge 
in  atheism,  even  here  they  will  pursue  him  and 
give  him  no  rest.  Even  although  it  were  granted 
that  there  is  no  God,  still  there  is  an  eternity  and 
immensity.  To  suppose  that  there  was  a  time 
before  time  is  a  contradiction.  The  mind  of  man 
perceives  that  the  eternity  of  time  is  a  necessary 
truth,  the  reverse  of  which  is  absm*d  and  imjDOSsi- 
ble.  Though  it  cannot  fathom  eternity,  it  must 
entertain  it.  It  is  not  clearer  that  there  is  time 
now,  than  that  time  never  had  a  beginning.  O 
eternity,  thou  irresistible,  yet  most  inconceivable 
thought !  Thy  existence  is  as  clear  as  the  light  of 
heaven,  thy  nature  is  as  dark  as  chaos.  The  mind 
of  man  can  neither  throw  thee  off  nor  bear  thy 
weight. 

And  space,  where  are  thy  limits  ?  That  which 
bounds  the  greatest  conceivable  extension  is  space; 


420  TXCOMPEEIIEXSTBILITY    OF    GOD. 

when  our  imagination  lias  travelled  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  its  conception,  space  lies  on  the  other  side, 
and  is  then  onlv  beo-innino-.  Ko  man  can  set  bounds 
to  space  in  his  own  mind.  That  it  is  immense  is  as 
clear  as  that  it  has  the  smallest  expansion.  Tlie 
mind  is  convinced  as  fullj,  that  there  is  space  with- 
out end,  as  that  there  is  sj^ace  between  the  eye  and 
the  horizon.  Yet  who  can  comprehend  boundless 
space  ?  Who  can  think  of  extension  that  never 
comes  to  an  end  ?  We  can  conceive  the  existence 
of  worlds,  and  of  extension  beyond  all  the  powers 
of  calculation,  but  still  the  mind  must  have  some 
place  to  stop.  It  wistfully  looks  out  for  a  resting 
place,  but  like  the  dove  from  the  ark,  it  can  find 
none.  There  is  space  beyond  its  utmost  con- 
ceptions. 

Yain  man,  when  thou  canst  not  fathom  things 
that  thou  seest  not,  yet  admit,  why  wilt  thou  cavil 
with  an}^  thing  in  the  revealed  account  of  the 
divine  character  ?  Wilt  thou  never  cease  to  be  a 
fool,  by  a  desire  to  show  thy  wisdom.  Puny  intel- 
lect, thou  wilt  receive  nothing  that  thou  canst  not 
comprehend,  yet  there  is  nothing  in  the  divine 
character,  that  is  not  above  thy  feeble  comprehen- 
sion !  Let  the  Christian  learn  in  all  things  to  sub- 
mit im2)licitly  to  what  God  teaches.  Let  him  not 
vainly  as  well  as  impiously  try  to  explain  what  is 
inexplicable  to  man.  That  God  says  so,  should 
satisfv  the  believer. 


CATALOGUE 


BOOK 


PUBLISHED 


ANB 


FOE  SALE  TO  THE  TEABE,  OE  AT  EETIIL, 


EDWARD    H.     FLETCHER, 

141  NASSAU  STREET, 
NEW  YORK. 

1852. 


EDWAED  H.  FLETCHER, 
141  NASSAU-STE  T, 

Keeps  ?onstantly  on  hand  a  complete  assortment  of  RELIGIOUS 
AND  MlrfCELLANEOUS 

which  arc  sold  at  verj'  low  prices. 
Attention  is  particularly  requested  to  the  following  list  of 

ALEXANDER,  J.  W.—  TJie  Young'  Men  of  Cities  urged  to  tlu 
woik  of  Mental  Improvement. 

OARSON,  L.  L.  D.,  Alexander,  The  Life  of  by  Rev.  Geo.  C. 
Moore.     "  The  Jonathan  Edwards  of  the  19th  century." 

**        **        The  Knowledge  of  Jesxis  the  most  excellent  of  the  Sci- 
ences. 
"A  charming  book,  and  we  could  wish  it  were  in  every 

Christian  laniil}'."  Lutheran  Observer. 

•*  A  book  of  vigorous  thought,  worthy  of  careful  study." 

Rel.  Herald. 
"  Would  do  honor  to  any  pen  that  ever  wrote." 
J  Troy  Budget. 

<       "        ••         The  God  of  Providence.    (In  press.) 

CONVERSATIONAL  COMMENTART  on  Matthew,  John 
and  the  Acts.     By  Wm.  Hague,  D.  D. 

CO  BBIN,  Ingram.     The  Illustrated  Domestic  Bible. 

CHEEVER,  D.  D.,  Geo.  B.—A  Plea  for  Children  and  the  Chris- 

dun  Sabbath. 
DOWLiI>iCT,  D.  D.,  John.— A  Collection  of  Hymns  for  use  in  con- 
ference and  prayer  meetings. 

The   Old-Fashioned  Bible,   or  ten  reasons  against  the 
proposed  Baptist  version  of  the  New  Testament. 


:     DOWLl 
II        II 


EVERTS,  Wm.  W.-TAe  Life  and  Thoughts  of  John  Foster. 

*•        "        The  Social  Position  and  Influence  of  Oitiei. 

"        ««        The  Theatre. 

FOSTER.  John.— TAe  Spirit  of  Missions,  with  an  Essay  by  Rev. 
J.  P.  Thompson,  pastor  of  the  Broadway  Tabernacle  Church. 

HEAVEN'S  ANTIDOTE  to  the  Curse  of  Labor,  a  prize  essay 
on  the  Sabbath. 

HARRIS,  Mrs.  S.  VL— Memoir  of  Jacob  Thomas,  missionary  to 

Assam. 

HAGrD'E,  D.  D.,  Wm.,  Conversational  Commentary  on  Matthew, 
John  and  the  Acts. 

•*        "        lite  Duties  of  Employers  and  Employed. 

MOORB,  Geo.  C. — Life  of  Alexander  Carson,  LL.  D. 

MATTISON,  H.—The  Trinity  and  Modern  Arianism. 

PAINE,  Martyn.— TAe  Soul,  Instinct  and  Life,  physiologically 
distinguished  from  Materialism. 

SABBATH  ESSAYS;  comprisin?  the  Pearl  of  Days,  Heaven's 

Antidote,  and  the  Light  of  the  Week. 

THE  GOD  OF  PROVIDENCE,  the  God  of  the  Bible;  by 
Alex.  Carson. 

THE  PEARL  OF  DAYS,  by  a  Laborer's  Daug-hter. 

THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  WEEK,  or  the  Advantages  of  the 
Sabbath  to  the  Working  Classes.    A  prize  Essay. 

WILLIAMS,  D.  D.,  Wm.  R.,  Miscellanies ;  consisting  of  Dig. 
courses  and  Essays.  This  volume  contains  the  most  elaborate 
and  finished  of  Dr.  Williams'  productions. 

"A  volume  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  completeness  of  a 
modern  library." — !^.  T.  Weekly  Review. 

"  Dr.  Williams  is  a  profound  scholar  and  a  brilliant  writer." — N.Y. 
Evangelist. 

«'  *    *    *    from  the  pen  of  one  of  the  most  able  and  accomplished 
authors  of  the  ace." — Bap.  Memorial. 

"  We  are  glad  to  see  this  volume.    We  wish  that  such  men  abound- 
ed in  every  sect." — Ghn.  Register. 

"  This  volume  contains  some  of  the  choicest  emanations  of  a  mind 
of  the  highest  order." — TV.  Y.  Com.  Advertiser. 

"  This  is  one  of  the  richest  volumes  that  has  been  given  to  the  pub 
lie  for  many  years." — N.  Y.  Bap.  Register. 

*'  The  author's  mind  is  cast  in  no  common  mould.    *  *  a  delightful 
volume." — Methodist  Protestant, 

2^u  '^'^'^'>'>''«'VV^/v>rt*vvwv%<vv«iA^vvv%/>/>*vv^*vvvs^vv'vvvvvvvs^vv%r^.^vvvvs^^  '^*  ffi?^ 


"A  rich  literary  repast." — Albany  Journal. 

"Ilis  character  |>re>eiits  a  rare  union  of  the  highest  qualities  of 
the  sfiiolar  ami  tlie  Cliri.>tiaii." — Olioe  Branch. 

"  Dr.  VV.  is  one  of  the  leadiii;^  minds  of  our  country,  and  this  vol- 
ume one  of  tlie  richest  gems  of  literature." — Lime  Rock  Gazelle. 

WORDS  IN  EARNEST;  by  Revs.  T.W.Alexander,   W.  W 
Everts,  Win.  Ha;,'ue,  and  Geo.  B.  Ciieever. 

S.  S.  HYMNS.— The  Baptist  S.  S.  Hymn  Book. 

TURNE7,  Rev.  E.—The  Scriptural  Law  of  Baptism. 

NOEL,  Rev.  and  Hon.  B.  W.—Essutf  on   Gkristian  Baptism,   with 
an  Introduction  by  John  Dowiing,  D.  D. 

BELCHER.    Rev.  Joseph.— TAe  Baptist   Pulpit  of  the   United 
Stales,  with  fine  portraits. 

FISH,  Rev.  H.  C.—  The  Baptist  Catechism,  iu  two  vols. 

ARTICLES  OF  FAITH  as  generally  held  by  the  Baptist  Da- 

noniination. 

WHEELOOK,  Rev.  A — Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Suppe?'. 

MANLY,   Revs.  Basil    and  Basil    Jr.— T/tc    Baptist   Psatmody,    a 
Collection  of  Hymns  for  the  Worship  of  God. 


ELAilKS. 


MARRIAGE  CERTIFICATES,  a  new  and  beautiful  article, 

with  a  s-ilver  border. 

Per  Quire. 
LETTERS    OF    DISMISSION    OF     CHURCH 

MEMBERS 50  cts. 

LETTERS   OF  NOTIFICATION   OF  RECEP- 
TION OF  MEMBERS 50  cts. 

CALLS  OF  COUNCILS 50  cts. 

ASSOOIATIONAL  LETTERS 50  ers. 


-^ 


Wu^B  in  (BuntBi: 

O  R  , 

THE  PATH  OF  WISDOM  MADE  PIAIN. 

BY   REVS. 

WILLIAM  W.   EVERTS,  J.  W.   ALEXANDER, 

WILLIAM  HAGUE,  G.  W.   ANDERSON, 

GEORGE  B.    CHEEVEK 

*'This  is  a  most  capital  work  for  young  men.  It  con- 
sists of  essays  on  the  social  position  and  influence  of  cities; 
the  temptations  of  city  life;  young  men  of  cities  urged  to 
the  work  of  mental  employment ;  the  theatre ;  duties  of 
employers  and  employed  ;  punishment  not  preventive  ;  a 
plea  for  children  ;  and  the  Sabbath." — Lutheran  Observer. 

"  These  discourses  have  been  prepared  in  view  of  the 
actual  necessities  and  dangers  of  the  times,  and  have  a  di- 
rect application  to  the  condition  of  thousands.  We  should 
be  glad  to  see  hundreds  of  copies  of  this  volume  in  the 
hands  of  our  Church  members  in  this  city;  for  we  are  per- 
suaded its  careful  and  prayerful  perusal  would  be  attended 
with  good  results  on  a  large  scale." — Central  Christian 
Herald,  Cin 

**  On  the  whole  this  is  one  of  the  most  useful  as  well  as 
attractive  series  of  essays  which  have  fallen  under  our  no- 
tice."— Christian  News. 


COMPKISING, 

THE    HISTOllY    OF    PKOVIDENCE    AS    ENFOLDED    IN    THE 

BOOK    OK   ESTHEil,  alsO,  THE   GOD  OF   PROVIDENCE, 

THE  GOD  OF  THE  BIBLE,  and  also,  THE  TPxUTH 

OF  THE  GObPEL  DEMONSTRATED  FROM  THJS 

CHARACTER     OF     GOD     MANIFESTED 

IN    THE    ATONEMENT. 

BY    ALEXANDER    CARSON. 

12mo.  cloth,  Price,  75  cents. 

"  This  volume  contains  an  able  and  highly  interesting 
elucidation  of  the  wonderful  disclosures  of  divine  Provi- 
dence, narrated  in  the  book  of  Esther.  The  facts  re- 
corded in  that  book  reveal  the  unseen  hand  of  the  Most 
High,  directing  the  most  minute  events,  as  well  as  those 
esteemed  great,  to  accomplish  the  hallowed  purposes  of 
his  own  will.  The  work  before  us  draws  out  and  illus- 
trates this  consolatory  truth." — Chn.  Observer.'* 

"  We  have  already  in  former  numbers  of  the  Memo- 
rial, noticed  "  the  Life  of  Carson  "  by  Mr.  Moore,  and 
*'  the  Knowledge  of  Jesus,'*  written  by  Dr.  C.  We  have 
now  the  third  volume  in  the  series,  and  we  hope  there 
will  be  many  more,  if  they  are  all  as  good  as  the  one 
before  us.  It  contains  a  clear,  cogent,  and  incontrovert- 
ible argument  in  favor  of  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  a  spe- 
cial Providence  of  God.  The  skeptic  maintains  that  all 
events  occur  in  accordance  with  the  general  laws  of 
nature:  but  Dr.  Carson  shows  conclusively,  that  even  in 
the  general  laws  of  his  government,  God  specially  super- 
intends them  so  that  particular  events  transpire  by  the 
efficiency  of  particular  agents,  and  usually  in  accordance 
with  general  laws."— .Sa;;.  Memorial. 


¥OEDS  IN  EARNEST: 


THE  PATH  OF  WISDOM  MADE  FLAM 


BY    REVrS. 


WILLIAM  W.  EVERTS, 
J.  W.  ALEXANDER, 
WILLIAM  HAGUE, 
8.  W.  ANDERSON, 
GEORGE  B.  CHEEYEB. 


This  yrork  has  been  elaborately  prepared,  and  maltes 
escellent  book  for  young  people,  especially,  to  peruse. 


IN     PLAIN     AND     ELEGANT     BINDINGS, 

FOR    SAj.E    by 

EDWARD   H.   FLETCHER, 

141  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK. 


MISCELLANIES. 

BY  WILLIAM  R.  WILLIAMS,  D  D. 

Plain  12mo,  Si  25;    do.  8vo,  $1  75;    half  morocco,  62  25;   cloth,  full 

gilt,  S3  00;  Turkey,  full  gilt,  $5  00;  do.,  clasps,  $6  GO. 

DOWLING^S    CONFERENCE    HYMNS. 

Plain,  25c. ;    gilt,  40c. 

THE  LIGHT   OF   THE  WEEK: 

Oi',  the  Advaatages  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Working  Classes. 

A    PRIZE    ESSAY. 
Plain,  25c. ;  cloth,  full  gilt,  60c. 

PROVIDENCE    UNFOLDED. 

BY  ALEXANDER  CARSON,  LL.D. 
Plain,  75c. ;  cloth,  full  gilt,  $2  GO. 

LIFE    OF    ALEXANDER    CARSON,  LL.D. 

BY  REV.  GEO.  C.  MOORE. 
Plain,  60c.  ;   cloth,  full  gilt,  $1  50. 

WORDS    IN    EARNEST. 

AN  EXCELLENT  WORK  FOR  THE  YOUNG. 

Plain,  75c. ;  full  gilt,  $2  00. 

MEMOIR  OF  JACOB  THOMAS,  MISSIONARY  TO  ASSAM. 

Tur.  morocco,  $2  00. 


FOSTER  ON  MISSIONS. 

WITH 

AN  ESSAY  ON  THE  SKEPTICISM   OF  THE  CHURCH. 
BY  REV.  JOSEPH  P.  THOMPSON, 

PA8T0K     OF     THE     BKOADAVAY     TABERNACLE     CHUBCH. 

{From  the  New  York  Evangelist.) 
This  essay  of  Foster's  ia  one  ol  the  grandest  and  most  eloquent  of  all 
his  writings,  the  reproduction  of  which,  in  tbis  inviting  form,  will  do 
much  good.  The  missionary  work  assumes  a  dignity  and  importance, 
yndcr  the  glowing  tints  of  his  masterly  pencil,  which  ought  to  shame 
the  languid  interest  of  the  church,  and  which  very  naturally  and  appro- 
priately suggests  Mr.  Thompson's  preliminary  essay  on  the  skepticism 
of  the  church.  This  essay  is  very  well  written,  and  an  impressive  pres- 
entation of  the  causes  and  effects  of  a  deficient  faith  in  the  promises  of 
God,  in  respect  to  the  world's  conversion.  The  work  is  neatly  printed, 
and  we  hope  will  find  many  readers. 

{From  the  New  York  Recorder.) 
TTais  is  the  substance  of  a  discourse  preached  by  its  celebrated  author, 
and  subsequently  prepared  by  him  for  the  press.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
»ble  and  comprehensive  discussions  of  the  subjfict  of  missions  that  has 
ever  been  written.  It  contains  that  remarkable  fragment  of  Foster's,  en- 
titled "  God  Invisible,"  conceived  in  the  very  spirit  of  the  old  Hebrew 
prophets.  The  preliminary  Essay,  by  Rev.  J,  P.  Thompson,  adds  to  the 
value  of  the  original  work. 

{From,  the  Baptist  Messenger.) 
John  Foster  on  Missions,  is  all  that  need  be  said.    To  say  more,  would 
^like  an  attempt  to  gild  the  sun. 

{From  the  Christian  Chronicle.) 
It  is  one  of  the  grandest  productions  of  its  author,  exhibiting,  in  a  h!gh 
degree,  the  comprehensive  grasp  of  thought,  the  lofty  sweep  of  imagin- 
ation, and  the  rugged  and  massive  style  wnich  made  him  for  so  many 
years  the  acknowledged  Jupiter  Tonaiis  among  English  Dissenters. 

PUBLISHED    BY 

£i>ivARi>  IT.  fl.¥:tche:r, 

141  NASj?AU  street,  «£W  YORK. 


RKCOMM£:i»DA.TIONS 

OF 

THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  JESUS. 

BY    DR.    CARSON. 


[From  the  Primitive  Clmrch  M&e&r.ine,  Lontisa.] 

"In  illustratRig  this  glorious  theme  the  a'^ithor'a 
mind  expands  ni  the  lull  strength  and  vig'^  of  i^A  con- 
ceptions, and  pictures  realities  of  Divine  *rith  ain>ost 
too  brightly  to  be  beheld  with  the  eye  of  ^eitla  undim- 
med. 

'•  The  present  volume  ('  The  Knowledge  of  Jesus') 
is  full  of  invaluable  principles,  cast  in  an  attractive 
mould.  Every  page  lives  with  interest;  there  is  no- 
thing dry,  nothing  tedious.  Its  style  flows  transparent 
and  free  as  the  mountain  stream." 

[From  the  Orthodox  Presbyterian,  Belfast.] 

EDITED    BY   DR.  KDGAR. 

"  On  matters  of  diurch  order,  it  is  well  known  we 
differ  from  him ;  but  as  a  scholar  we  honor  him — as  a 
Christian  brother  we  embrace  him.  In  the  knowledga 
of  the  philosophy  of  the  language,  he  is  far  in  advance 
of  the  present  age  ;  and  with  respect  to  metaphysical 
acuteness  and  powers  of  reasoning,  he  has  been  called 
'the  Jonathan  Edwards  of  the  nineteenth  century.* 
His  character  as  a  philosophic  theologian,  and  a  pro- 
found, original,  independent  thinker,  stands  in  the  very 
highest  rank  ;  and  he  is  only  justly  designated,  when 
called  one  of  the  most  philosophic  reasoners  of  the  prea- 
flnt  age." 

EDWARD  H.  FLETCHER,  Publisher, 

141  Nassau  St.,  N.  Y. 


ALESAWDES   CARSON,   LL.D. 

THE  KNOWLEMeTf  JESU& 

The  most  Escelleat  of  tha  Scienoes. 
BY  ALEXANDER  CARSON,  LL.D. 

{From  the  Lutheran  Obsemer.) 

This  is  a  charming  boob,  and  we  could  wish  it  were  in  even'  Christian 
family.  The  author  is  a  writer  of  rare  merit:  learned,  philoso;,>hic-,  pro- 
found, devout,  and  singularly  tiuent  and  beautiful  iu  his  stylo.  We  tnko 
^eat  pleasure  hi  recommending  it.  He  hns  been  called  "the  Jonali-an 
Edwards  of  the  nineteenth  ceiUury,"  and  those  who  read  this  aslnnirable 
production  will  not  be  unwilling  to  admit  his  claim  to  this  distiusjuished 
compliment. 

{From  the  Relighus  Herald,  Hartford.) 

This  is  a  bonk  of  vigorous  thought,  deserving  of  iittentive  perusal  and 
careful  study  by  ministers  and  intelligent  l.iyn\on.  It  discusses  in  a  con-, 
densed  maim»'r  the  facts  respectinq;  God  and  His  government  wliich  are 
presented  by  nature,  and  then  parses  to  the  more  e^?p':lcit  revelation  of 
the  Hible,  and  shows  the  identiiicMtion  of  the  gospel  uiih  the  divine  char- 
acter, as  mani  rested  in  the  work  of  redemption  through  the  operation  of 
the  Trinity,  and  its  self-evident  truth. 

{From  the  Watchman  and  Refiector.) 
The  late  Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  of  Ireland,  possessed  nn  intellect  of 
great  logical  power  and  a  heart  of  warm  atfVct'ons.  His  works  are  hf-nce 
cheract<-rizcd  l>y  depth  and  clearness  ol  thought,  and  by  vigor  anil  fervor 
of  expression.  His  views  of  the  gospel,  as  of  the  fntmework  and  ordi- 
nances of  tlie  church,  are  as  luminous  as  day.  The  present  volume  taked 
rank  among  the  best  of  the  productions  of  his  pen. 

{From  the  Congregationalist.) 
The  work  shows  for  itself  that  it  was  written  by  a  man  of  bold  and 
Btrong  tho-iglit.     It  has  no  reference  to  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of 
hJs  own  denomination,  though  Dr.  Carson  has  some  celebrity  for  writings 
vf  tfaie  ciaea. 

PUBLISHED    BY 

EDWARD    n.    FLETCHER, 

141  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK. 


THE 

LiFi  OF  ALEXAMeEB  Qhmm,  LL.0. 

BY  EEV.  GEORGE  C.  MOOllE. 


OPINIONS    OF    THE    PRESS. 

(From  the  Independent,  N.  Y.) 
Mr.  Moore  has  rendered  a  good  service  to  the  memoiy 
of  his  pi-eceptor  by  this  sketch  of  his  private  and  inward 
hfe,  and  he  has  rendered  also  a  service  hardly  less  vakia- 
ble  to  Christian  truth  and  charity. 


(^From  the  Religious  Herald,  Richmond,  Va.) 

This  is  an  interesting  work.  Indeed,  it  could  scarcely 
fail  to  be  so,  for  its  subject  was  not  only  one  of  the  most 
learned  and  able  theologians  of  our  own  denomination, 
but  one  of  the  great  men  of  the  present  age. 


(From  the  New  York  Tribune.) 

The  biography  of  that  eminent  scholar  and  divine  in  a 
etyle  of  unusual  vivacity  and  point. 

PUBLISHED    BY 

EDV7ARD  H.  FLETCHER, 

141  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK 


THE 

OF    THE 

UNITED   STATES; 

COM8ISTIKG    OF    ELOfiOEXT   AND    INSTRUCTIVE    PABSAOES    FROM 
THE    SEHMONS   OF   200    BAPTJBT    MINISTERS. 

By  JOSEPH   BKL.C!:ER,  D.  D. 

EMBELLISHED   WITH   FINE  PORTRAITS. 


"The  portraits  are  worth  more  than  the  cost  of  the  entire  work. 
2t  cannot  be  otherwise  .han  gratifying  to  every  Baptist,  to  find 
that  the  leading  minds  of  his  denomination  hold  "  the  truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus"  with  such  a  vigorous  grasp,  and  commend  it  to 
others  with  so  much  power.  The  passages  are  generally  6N>rt, 
out  they  are  pure  gold.^  — Baptist  Messenger, 

"This  publication  will,  we  think,  prove  interesting  to  Baptists 
everywhere." — Religious  Herald. 

"  The  selections  cover  the  whole  range  of  theology,  and  th« 
volume  will  he  curious,  agreeable  and  useful."— iV.  Y.  Recorder, 

"Its  editor  is  a  man  ■>f  judgment  and  taste,  and  of  considera- 
ble distinction  as  an  author ;  and  as  it  regards  the  typography, 
nothing  better  can  be  asked  or  expected.  The  parties  have  oui 
best  wishes  for  their  encouragement  and  success.  The  moral 
effect  of  the  publication  cannot  fail,  of  course,  to  be  in  favor  of 
religion  and  virtue." — Biblical  Recorder. 

EDWARD  U.  FLETCHER,  Publisher, 

HI  JN'a86AU  St.,  N.  IT 


DOWLING'S  CONFERENCE  HYMNS. 


The  publisher  begs  leave  to  submit  a  few  of  the  many  unsolicited  r^ 
commendations  of  this  little  volume,  which  have  been  received.  It  is 
eminently  adapted  for  use  in  the  family,  and  for  private  devotion.  The 
low  price  brings  it  within  the  means  of  all,  and  its  large  type  adapts  it  to 
the  old  as  w^ell  as  the  young. 

A  prominent  pastor  in  Illinois  writes:  "I  received  the  copy  of  Dr. 
Bowling's  hymns,  which  you  sent  me  some  time  ago.  I  have  examined 
them  thoroughly,  and  have  shown  them  to  many  others.  The  universal 
expression  is,  'This  is  just  the  book  we  want  in  the  West.  Here  are  the 
old,  soul-cherished  revival  hymns,  which  everybody  knows,  and  with 
which  everybody  is  delighted.'  The  mixed  nature  of  our  population 
here  renders  it  diSicult  to  obtain  hymn  bonks  which  all  will  like.  But 
this  little  volume  is  almost  known  to  all  by  heart,  whether  from  the  east, 
■west,  north,  or  south.  The  hymns  are  those  which  almost  every  Chris- 
tian  has  learned  and  loved ;  not  for  their  poetic  elegance,  but  for  their 
spirit  and  good  religious  sentiment.  I  have  also  taken  pains  to  obtain 
copies  of  the  Social  Psalmist,  the  Christian  Melodist  (by  Br.  Banvard), 
and  the  Baptist  Harp.  These  are  generally  very  good,  but  everybody 
Bays  Dr.  Dowling's  hymns  are  the  ones  for  the  West  to  use  in  conference, 
prayer,  and  inquiry  meetings.  Thousands  of  them  can  be  sold  in  this 
State,  if  they  are  introduced." 

;  From  Rev.  John  M.  Peck,  of  Missouri. 

"It  is  exactly  such  a  book  as  thousands  want  and  will  buy  in  these 
great,  central  States." 

FYom  the  Vermont  Gazette. 

**This  work  is  designed  especially  to  meet  a  want  existing  in  the  Bap- 
tist denomination.  The  high  literary  character  of  ^the  author  is  a  sure 
guarantee  in  this  respect.  But,  after  all.  it  is  not  so  much  finely  finished 
sentences  as  soul-stirring  truths,  hymned  by  warm  hearts,  that  impart 
to  the  social  intei-view  its  greatest  zest." 

From  the  Michigan  Christian  Herald. 

*'  From  a  hasty  examination,  we  should  think  that  Mr.  Dowling  had  ex- 
ecuted the  work  in  a  judicious  manner." 

From  the  Baptist  Memorial. 

"The  people  generally  will  say— give  us  the  old-fashioned  hymns,  if 
the  poetry  is  not  quite  as  good  ;  while  some  critics  will  think  otherwise 
Most  of  the  hymns  are,  however,  unobjectionable  in  respect  to  poetic 
merit." 

From  the  Western  Christian  Journal. 

"Hymn  books  are  multiplying,  but  we  shall  be  mistaken  If  this  does 
Dot  prove  to  be  a  popular  collection.  It  contains  360  hymns  and  many 
of  them  the  sweetest  in  the  language." 

From,  the  Christian  Secretary. 

"We  can  cheerfully  commend  this  little  book  to"the  churches,  as  being 
pre-eminently  adapted  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  designed." 

EDWARD  H.  FLETCHER,  Publisher, 

141  Nassau  St.,  N.  Y. 


THE  CONVERSATIONAL  COMMENTARY; 

COMBINING 

THE  QUESTIOA'-BOOK  AND  EXPOSITION. 

DESIGNED  FOR  THE  USE  OF  SABBATH-SCHOOLS  AM)  F^VMIUEa 

Vol.  I.,  on  Matthewt 
Vol.  II.,  on  JoliiK. 
Vol.  III.,  on  t]i«  Acts* 

BY  WILLIAM   HAGUE. 


"  The  plan  of  Dr.  Hague  in  these  several  books  to  meet 
the  wants  of  the  higher  classes  in  Sabbath-schools,  Ave  have 
never  seen  surpassed  nor  even  equalled  by  any  other  author, 
according  to  our  taste  and  judgment.'' — Christian  Chronicle. 

''■  It  is  a  species  of  Commentary  quite  orisijinal,  combining 
all  the  most  valuable  results  of  archeological  and  critical 
learning,  without  the  lumber  and  parade  which  often  render 
the  perusal  of  the  ordinary  Commentaries  and  '  notes '  an 
onerous  and  unwelcome  task.  Mr.  Hague's  plan  renders 
everything  clear,  impressive,  and  practical,  so  that  the  mind 
is  held,  by  an  incVeasing  interest,  to  those  truths  which  aro 
most  important  to  be  remembered." — Western  Watchman. 

"  The  method  of  imparting  instruction  in  this  book  is  a 
novel  but  happy  one.  The  author  remarks  in  his  preface, 
'  The  teacher  who  would  give  instruction  in  any  department 
of  knowledge  so  as  to  awaken  in  his  scholar  a  spirit  of  in- 
quiry, cannot  easily  satisfy  himself  with  abrupt  and  insu- 
lated questions  ;  in  order  to  arouse  the  mind  to  action  and 
bring  himself  into  sympathy  with  it,  he  must  coinmunicate 
something.  The  remark  which  imparts  knowledge,  quickens 
thought,  and  then  conversation  proceeds  with  a  rational  -tnd 
easy  flow.'  " — Michigan  Christian  Herald. 

Published  by  EDWARD  H.  FLETCHER, 
141  Nassau  Street,  New  York. 


THE 


BAPTIST  SCRIPTURAL  CATECHISM 


Having  examined  the  Baptist  Scriptural  Catechism  prepared  by  Rct. 
n.  C.  Fish,  we  cordially  recommend  it  to  the  churches,  Delieving  it  to 
possess  peculiar  excellences ;  among  which  may  be  mentioned  especiallj 
the  following : 

1.  It  is  based  upon  the  catechetical  plan  of  instruction. 

2.  The  genera!  use  of  Scriptural  language  in  the  answers. 

3.  An  important  peculiarity  of  this  work  is,  that  it  contains  an  extendo'l 
examination  of  the  evidences  of  Christianily — a  department  of  biblical 
instruction  wliich  has  been  too  much  neglecc^d. 

We  earnestly  hope  that  it  may  be  generally  adopted  by  our  Sabbath 
Schools. 


S.  H.  CONE,           Pastor 

of  First  Baptist  Church, 

New  York. 

S  REMINGTON,            " 

Stanton  St. 

Bap. 

Ch. 

u 

JOHN  DOWLING,      « 

Broad '.vay 

*< 

(( 

(( 

W.  S.  CLAPP,               « 

Olive  Branch 

I  » 

u 

(( 

LEVI  P ARM  ELY,        « 

Sliiloh 

« 

<( 

« 

A.  D.  GILLETTE,         « 

Eleventh 

« 

(( 

Philadelphia. 

R.  T.MIDDLEDITCH," 

IL 

" 

Lyons  Farms,  N.  J 

WM.  B.  TOLAN.            " 

n 

l( 

Morrii-town,        " 

DAVID  B   STOUT,       " 

First 

« 

u 

Middletown,        "^ 

WM.  H.  TURTON,        " 

'* 

u 

Elizabethtown,   '  ; 

J.  M   CARPENTER,     " 

(1 

I' 

Perth  Amboy     » 
;  Schooley's           ^ 
'    Mountain, 

JOHN  TEASDALE,      " 

" 

( 

H.  V.  JONES,                 '♦ 

(t 

" 

Piscalaway,         " 

D.  HENRY  MILLER,  " 

Mt.  Olivet 

" 

(( 

Yonkers,        N.  I 

SAMUEL  WHITE,        « 

First 

u 

u 

Stare n  Island,      *< 

D.  F.  LEACH,                 " 

(( 

(( 

Port  Jervis,        *♦ 

C.  A.  BUCK  BEE,           '* 

" 

" 

Conway,  Mass. 

L.  O.  GRENELL,  Missionary  to  California. 

The  first  volume  is  de.signed  for  the  younger  members  of  the  Sabbal-l 
School,  and  the  language  is  simple  and  plain.     Price  GOcts.  per  dozen. 

Volume  second  is  for  those  more  advanced,  and  contains  a  review  of 
the  doctrines  and  evidences  of  Christianity.     Price  $1  20cts  per  dozen. 

EDWARD  H.  FLETCHER,  Publislier, 

141  Nassau  St.,  N.  if 


CHEAP  CASH    BOOK  STORE. 

EDWARD    H.    FLETCHER, 

No*  141  Nassau  street, 

NEW  YORK. 

Has  constantly  on  hand,  at  wholesale  and  retail,  a  general 
assortment  of  Theological,  Classical^  Miscellaneous,  School 
and  Blank  Books  and  Stationery. 

A  complete  Depository  of  Sabbath  School  Books. 

Booksellers,  Traders,  Teachers,  Schools,  Academies  and 
Individuals  supplied,  wholesale  and  retail,  on  the  most  Ub- 
eral  terms. 

Religious  books  of  every  variety  which  are  to  be  found 
in  the  market,  may  be  obtained  here  at  the  very  lowest 
prices. 


SECONB-nAND   BOOKS. 


Valuable  Standard  Theological  and  other  Books  from 
private  libraries  will  be  sold  at  a  fraction  of  the  price  of 
new. 


MARRIAGE  CERTIFICATES. 

A  new  and  beautiful  article,  with  a  silver  border,  sam- 
ples of  which  will  be  sent  gratis  to  post-paid  applications. 
Published  by 

EDWARD   H.  FLETCHER, 

No.  141  Nassau  street. 


ait  ^nhiiratinns. 


gjlts  nni  JlinrEings, 

Or  Words  of  Comfort  addressed  to  those  who  are  sowing  in  tears 
and  shall  reap  in  joy.  By  John  Bowling,  D.  D.  "  Weeping  may 
endure  for  a  night,  but  joy  cometh  in  the  morning."  Contents  :— 
1.  Nights  of  weeping  and  mornings  of  joy.  2.  Night  of  convic- 
tion and  mornings  of  conversion.  3.  Night  of  desertion  and  morn- 
ing of  restoration.  4.  Night  of  trouble  and  morning  of  deliver- 
ance. 5.  Night  of  weariness  and  morning  of  Rest.  6.  Night  of 
death  and  morning  of  everlasting  life. 

ItelrjiBS  ni  E  €rntt  BiHsinimrtt. 

BY  REV.  GEO.  HATT. 

This  is  a  volume  of  experience,  of  facts  and  incidents  in  the 
path  of  personal  effort. 

€ljB  mrnng  mh  nf  tjj^  tint, 

OR   JUVENILE    INFLUENCE. 
BY  J.  H.  ROSS. 

A  good  book  for  Boys  and  Girls, 

€^t  3SarriagB  Bimratn; 

A  treatise  on  the  nature  of  Matrimony,  the  mutual  obligalionf 

of  husband  and  wife,  with  appropriate  instruction  to  both, 

BY  REV.  S.  REMINGTON. 

Some  are  put  up  with  a  neat  marriage  certificate,  folded  in  like  a 

a  map,  for  the  use  of  ministers  to  present  those  they  marry.    Price 

from  12|  to  75  cents,  according  to  the  style  of  binding. 

3}lmnir  nf  5lfrA  Unmrt,  Irninr, 

AGENT    OF    THE    AMERICAN    BAPTIST    MISSIONARY    UNION, 

By  Rev.  H.  Harvey.    12mo.    Price,  75  Cents. 


1 


1 

a 


i 


THE 

BAPTIST 

SCRIPTURAL  CATECHISM. 

FOR  THE   USE  OF   SABBATH   SCHOOLS 
AND   BIBLE   CLASSES. 

VOLUME  IL 

ON   THE   EVIDENCES   AND    DOCTRINES    OP   CHRISTIANITY. 


FOR  THE  MORE  ADVANCED  MEMBERS  OF  SABBATH 
SCHOOLS,  AND  FOR  BIBLE  CLASSES. 


i 


i 


I 


1 


BY   HENRY   C.  FISH, 
Pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church,  Somerville,  N.  J. 


Ye  shall  lay  up  these  mj  words  in  your  heart,  and  in  your  soul. 

Deut.  xi.  18. 
The  word  have  I  hid  in  mine  heart.— Ps.  cxix.  IL 


SECOND    EDITION. 

NEW    YORK: 
EDWARD    H.    FLETCHER, 

141    NASSAU    STREET. 
1850. 


i 


I 


!& 


U 


CONVERSATIONAL  COMMENTARY,! 

■J  •  J 

!!r  COMBINIXG  THE  V 

QUESTION-BOOK  AND    EXPOSITION.         ]j 

DESIGNED    FOR  U 

BIBLE  CLASSES,  SABBATH  SCHOOLS,  AND  FAMILIES. 


A 


GOSPEL  ACCORDDTG  TO  MATTHEW. 


'I 

'I) 


BY 

WILLIAM      HAGUE 


In  free  discourse,  new  thoughts  are  struck  out,  and  the  seeds  of  truth  sparkle  and  1 1 

blaze,  wliicli  ill  CHlni  and  silent  rnadins  would    ii^ver  have  linen  excited.     Uy  coiiversa-  (f  1 

tion,  you  both  zive  and  receive  tlii.i  benefit;  a^  flints,  when  put   in  motion,  and  stnk-  ]|] 
iu|l  against  each  other,  produce  living  fire  on  both  sides. — Da.  Wattb. 


NEW    YORK: 

EDWARD    H.    FLETCHER. 

1851. 


'iS"^ 


